D O C U M E N T IS T H E P R O P E R T Y
C.(65)
OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S
COPY
S3
Uth June,
GOVERNMENT)
NO.
50 1965
CABINET
ROAD
TRANSPORT:
REPORT OF GEDDES
ON C A R R I E R S '
LICENSING
M e m o r a n d u m b y t h e M i n i s t e r of
COMMITTEE
Transport
I s e e k t h e a g r e e m e n t of m y c o l l e a g u e s t o t h e t e r m s of t h e s t a t e ­
m e n t at A n n e x A w h i c h I w o u l d p r o p o s e to m a k e o n p u b l i c a t i o n s h o r t l y
of t h e R e p o r t of t h e G e d d e s C o m m i t t e e o n C a r r i e r s ' L i c e n s i n g .
2.
The C o m m i t t e e was appointed by the p r e v i o u s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n in
O c t o b e r , 1 9 6 3 , w i t h t e r m s of r e f e r e n c e " I n t h e l i g h t of p r e s e n t d a y c o n ­
d i t i o n s , t c e x a m i n e t h e o p e r a t i o n a n d e f f e c t s of t h e s y s t e m of c a r r i e r s '
licences first introduced by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and as
s u b s e q u e n t l y modified by statute; and to m a k e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s " .
T h e s y s t e m of c a r r i e r s ' l i c e n c e s i s t h a t o p e r a t e d u n d e r t h e R o a d T r a f f i c
Act by the A r e a L i c e n s i n g A u t h o r i t i e s for g r a n t i n g A l i c e n c e s (for
public c a r r i e r s ) , 3 l i c e n c e s (for t r a d e r s c a r r y i n g o t h e r p e o p l e ' s goods
a s w e l l as t h e i r own) and C l i c e n c e s (for m a n u f a c t u r e r s a n d t r a d e r s
carrying goods on their own account only),
A c o p y of t h e C o m m i t t e e ' s
R e p o r t is attached at Annex E.
3.
T h e C o m m i t t e e s e t o u t ( i n A p p e n d i x 3 of t h e i r R e p o r t ) t h e m a i n
s t a t i s t i c s of t h e s c a l e a n d n a t u r e of r o a d t r a n s p o r t o p e r a t i o n s .
Corn­
p a r e d with the position in the e a r l y 1950's r o a d t r a n s p o r t h a s shown a
v e r y l a r g e i n c r e a s e a n d i n t e r m s of t o n m i l e a g e i s n o w c a r r y i n g m u c h
m o r e traffic than the r a i l w a y s .
4.
The C o m m i t t e e ' s findings and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e conveniently
s u m m a r i s e d i n C h a p t e r I of t h e R e p o r t .
Briefly, their main conclusion
i s that the l i c e n s i n g s y s t e m a s at p r e s e n t c o n s t i t u t e d fails to a c h i e v e
a n y of t h e o b j e c t s w h i c h m a y b e r e g a r d e d a s r e l e v a n t o b j e c t i v e s of
G o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y , n a m e l y p r o m o t i o n of p u b l i c s a f e t y , p r o m o t i o n of
e f f i c i e n c y i n r o a d t r a n s p o r t o p e r a t i o n s , r e d u c t i o n of h a r m f u l e f f e c t s on
a m e n i t y a n d e n v i r o n m e n t , p r o m o t i o n of i n c r e a s e d u s e of r a i l f a c i l i t i e s
a n d r e d u c t i o n o r c o n t r o l of c o n g e s t i o n , ,
The C o m m i t t e e see no m e r i t
i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of q u a n t i t a t i v e c o n t r o l s o r r e s t r i c t i o n s o n u s e of r o a d
t r a n s p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a b o l i t i o n , i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of g r e a t e r
e f f i c i e n c y , of r e s t r i c t i o n s o n t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e r o a d h a u l a g e i n d u s t r y
a n d o n t h e w o r k f o r w h i c h a l o r r y m a y b e u s e d , i n t r o d u c t i o n of a s y s t e m
of p e r m i t s t o p l y a s a c a r r i e r of g o o d s t o e n f o r c e s a f e t y r e q u i r e m e n t s
m o r e v i g o r o u s l y a n d t h e u s e of m e a s u r e s o t h e r t h a n q u a n t i t a t i v e
l i c e n s i n g t o p u r s u e G o v e r n m e n t a l a i m s of t r a n s p o r t p o l i c y ,
5.
The C o m m i t t e e have thus limited their task to considering
effectiveness
of a q u a n t i t a t i v e l i c e n s i n g s y s t e m , a s a t o o l of
T h e y h a v e n o t t a k e n c o - o r d i n a t i o n of t r a n s p o r t a s o n e of t h e
-1-
SECRET
N,
policy.
aims
the
a g a i n s t which they judge l i c e n s i n g , b e c a u s e they see it as the s y n t h e s i s
of t h e e t h e r a i m s e n u m e r a t e d .
They also see co-ordination as usually
t a k i n g t h e f o r m i n p r a c t i c e of a d j u s t m e n t of t h e r o a d / r a i l b a l a n c e , b u t
they do not offer any v i e w on w h a t the b a l a n c e should b e , or w h e t h e r
t h e e x i s t i n g b a l a n c e i s r i g h t o r , if n o t , i n w h i c h d i r e c t i o n i t s h o u l d b e
altered or on what principles.
The Report, therefore, leaves completely
o p e n t o G o v e r n m e n t f u r t h e r p u r s u i t of t h e a i m of c o - o r d i n a t i o n .
6.
In t h i s situation, it is c l e a r l y n o t p o s s i b l e to p r o n o u n c e for or
against the Geddes recommendations.
On t h e one h a n d , t h e y a r g u e
m u c h sound s e n s e a g a i n s t a s y s t e m which fails now to a c h i e v e the
p u r p o s e s for w h i c h i t w a s (30 y e a r s a g o ) s e t u p ; on t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
t h e y o f f e r n o g u i d a n c e o n h o w t o a c h i e v e t h e r i g h t b a l a n c e of i n v e s t m e n t
b e t w e e n r o a d a n d r a i l , to r e m e d y t h e l a c k of c o - o r d i n a t i o n a t t h e
o p e r a t i o n a l l e v e l a n d t o s e c u r e t h e r i g h t p a t t e r n of o r g a n i s a t i o n .
In
s h o r t they offer no specific a l t e r n a t i v e to licensing nor w e r e they
r e q u i r e d to do so.
T h e y m a y w e l l b e r i g h t i n t h e i r e s t i m a t e of t h e
i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e p r e s e n t s y s t e m of l i c e n s i n g t o a c h i e v e m o d e r n
transport policies.
But c l e a r l y w e c a n n o t c o m m i t o u r s e l v e s to s w e e p i n g
away that s y s t e m until we know m o r e confidently than we yet do what
should b e put in its p l a c e or w h e t h e r , indeed, it m i g h t be r e t a i n e d but
modified.
In this s e n s e I think w e c a n publicly justify s u s p e n d i n g
judgment on the m a i n Geddes r e c o m m e n d a t i o n by ­
( i )
a c c e p t i n g t h a t p o w e r f u l c r i t i c i s m s of t h e p r e s e n t s y s t e m
been made;
have
( i i )
r e s t a t i n g o u r b e l i e f t h a t t o t a l l a c k of c o n t r o l o v e r g o o d s
trans­
port is quite
( i i i )
unsxceptable;
and. e m p h a s i s i n g t h a t u n t i l w e a r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o d e v i s e
an
alternative, whether by licensing or Otherwise, m o r e a p p r o ­
p r i a t e to t h e n e e d s of t h e 1 9 6 0 ' s t h a n t h e s y s t e m d e v i s e d i n t h e
1930's, we do not p r o p o s e to a b o l i s h that s y s t e m , but n e i t h e r do
w e e n d o r s e it.
7.
It i s c l e a r t h a t s o m e r e g u l a t i o n of r o a d t r a n s p o r t i s e s s e n t i a l , b u t
w e ca.n o n l y d e t e r m i n e t h e p r e c i s e f o r m i t s h o u l d t a k e w h e n w e h a v e
c o m p l e t e d t h e s t u d i e s o n m e a n s of a c h i e v i n g c o - o r d i n a t i o n of t r a n s p o r t
which a r e in hand (including those being c a r r i e d out by L o r d Hinton, the
p r o g r e s s of w h i c h I w i l l e x p l a i n w h e n w e m e e t ) .
I a m now engaged in
t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of a d r a f t W h i t e P a p e r s h o w i n g , f o r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n of
m y c o l l e a g u e s , the p r o g r e s s being m a d e in t r a n s p o r t policy and the kind
of w o r k t h a t s t i l l n e e d s t o b e d o n e .
It m a y b e u s e f u l to p u b l i s h s u c h a
paper.
M e a n w h i l e I p r o p o s e p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e G e d d e s R e p o r t a s s o o n
a s p r a c t i c a b l e (I h a v e a l r e a d y a n n o u n c e d t h a t I h o p e t o p u b l i s h i t b y t h e
end of J u n e ) ,
a n d s e e k t h e a g r e e m e n t of m y c o l l e a g u e s to m y p r o p o s e d
statement.
T
M i n i s t r y of T r a n s p o r t ,
10th J u n e ,
8 . E . 1.
1965
-2-
SECRET
T?
ANNEX
DRAFT
GEDDES REPORT
A
STATEMENT
ON CARRIERS'
LICENSING
W i t h p e r m i s s i o n , I w i s h to i n f o r m t h e H o u s e t h a t t h e - R e p o r t of
t h e C o m m i t t e e of C a r r i e r s ' L i c e n s i n g , u n d e r t h e c h a i r m a n s h i p of L o r d
G e d d e s , which w a s appointed by the previous Administration, is being
published today.
C o p i e s will b e a v a i l a b l e i m m e d i a t e l y in the Vote
Office and f r o m H . M . Stationery Office.
T h e C o m m i t t e e s a y , i n b r i e f , t h a t t h e p r e s e n t s y s t e m of
l i c e n s i n g d o e s n o t s e c u r e a n y e x i s t i n g o r c o n c e i v a b l e a i m s of t r a n s p o r t
policy.
T h e y c o n s e q u e n t l y r e c o m m e n d a b o l i t i o n of a l l q u a n t i t a t i v e
l i c e n s i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s o n t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e r o a d h a u l a g e i n d u s t r y a n d
on the w o r k for which l o r r i e s m a y b e used.
T h e y p o s i t i v e l y r e c o m m e n d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n , i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of
s a f e t y , o f a s y s t e m o f p e r m i t s t o p l y a s a c a r r i e r o f g o o d s ; a.nd o f a
s y s t e m of c a r r i e r s ' p e r m i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p l a t e s , l i a b l e t o f o r f e i t .
F o r o t h e r a i m s of G o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y t h e y s u g g e s t t h a t
measures
different from the present quantitative licensing s y s t e m should
be
examined.
The C o m m i t t e e thus m a k e it c l e a r that they w e r e c o n c e r n e d with
t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e p r e s e n t l i c e n s i n g s y s t e m a s a t o o l o f p o l i c y a n d ­
q u i t e p r o p e r l y - d i d n o t t h i n k it w i t h i n t h e i r t e r m s of r e f e r e n c e to
s u g g e s t e i t h e r w h a t t h e a i m s of t r a n s p o r t p o l i c y s h o u l d b e o r v / h a t
m i g h t b e t h e a l t e r n a t i v e m e t h o d s of a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h e m .
F o r m y p a r t , I b e l i e v e t h a t t o t a l a b s e n c e of r e g u l a t i o n o v e r
road goods transport is quite unacceptable.
I certainly accept that the
Geddes C o m m i t t e e have shown that in m a n y r e s p e c t s the p r e s e n t
licensing s y s t e m provides ineffective regulation.
But whether this
s y s t e m c a n b e b r o u g h t u p - t o - d a t e o r w h e t h e r it m u s t b e a b o l i s h e d and
r e p l a c e d by s o m e t h i n g different, I a m not yet p r e p a r e d to j u d g e .
The G o v e r n m e n t h a s in hand studies into the m e a n s w h e r e b y
t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h t h e t r a n s p o r t of g o o d s a n d p a s s e n g e r s c a n b e s t
co-ordinated and developed in the national interest.
w i l l t a k e f u l l a c c o u n t of t h e G e d d e s
recommendations.
Committee
Meanwhile,
These
studies
s conclusions
Until the studies a r e completed,
whether the Commit tee's recommendations
not.
1
I cannot
and
say
will p r o v e acceptable
or
I s h a l l w e l c o m e v i e w s o n t h e R e p o r t of M e m b e r s
t h e H o u s e a n d of i n t e r e s t e d
of
organisations.
I w i s h to t a k e this f u r t h e r
o p p o r t u n i t y of e x p r e s s i n g t o
Lord
G e d d e s a n d h i s c o l l e a g u e s m y a p p r e c i a t i o n of t h e h a r d w o r k a n d
which they brought to their
and
be
devotion
task.
Of o n e t h i n g I a m c e r t a i n - t h e n a t i o n c a n n o t a f f o r d a c o m p l e t e l y
u n r e g u l a t e d , u n c o - o r d i n a t e d r o a d a n d r a i l t r a n s p o r t s y s t e m ; if w e
a g r e e that the p r e s e n t licensing s y s t e m is inadequate for the p u r p o s e ,
other m e a n s m u s t be found.
MINISTRY
OF
TRANSPORT
CARRIERS' LICENSING Report of the Committee
LONDON
HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY
EIGHT SHILLINGS NET
OFFICE
M I N I S T R Y
OF
T R A N S P O R T
C
A
R
R
I
E
R
S
'
L
I
C
E
N
S
I
N
G
Report of the
Committee
LONDON
HER
MAJESTVS
STATIONERY
OFFICE
M e m b e r s of the C o m m i t t e e
Chairman:
T H E LORD GEDDES, C . B . E . ,
D.L.
W . L . BARROWS, ESQ., J . P . ,
F.C.A.
H i s H O N O U R SIR WALKER CARTER, Q . C .
SIR D A V I D M I L N E , G . C . B .
SIR VINCENT TEWSON, C . B . E . ,
PROFESSOR B . S . YAMEY
Secretary:
J. M . MOORE, ESQ., D . S . C .
M.C.
Contents
Introduction
CHAPTER 1
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
General Conclusions as to the Present System of
Licensing. (1.3).
Recommendations. (1.4-1.5).
CHAPTER 2
History and Present Form of the Licensing System
(i) History:
T h e Background t o Licensing. (2.1-2.2).
Conditions before Licensing. (2.3-2.6).
Royal Commission on T r a n s p o r t . (2.7-2.8).
Salter Conference. (2.9-2.18).
Action on the Salter Conference^ Recom­
mendations. (2.19-2.21).
Early Development of the Licensing System
a n d the W a r Years. (2.22-2.23).
Nationalisation and Denationalisation of L o n g
Distance R o a d Haulage (The T r a n s p o r t Acts
of 1947 a n d 1953). (2.24-2.26).
Other Changes m a d e by the T r a n s p o r t Act,
1953. (2.27-2.28).
Consolidation of Earlier Legislation into the
R o a d Traffic Act, 1960. (2.29).
(ii) T h e Present Licensing System:
Carriers' Licences. (2.30-2.31).
T h e Licensing Authorities. (2.32-2.33).
Criteria for G r a n t of Licences. (2.34-2.38).
T h e T r a n s p o r t Tribunal. (2.39-2.41).
Exemption from the System. (2.42).
Revocation, Suspension a n d Curtailment of
Carriers' Licences. (2.43-2.44).
Prohibition of Unfit G o o d s Vehicles. (2.45).
Drivers' H o u r s a n d Records. (2.46-2.47).
Case Law. (2.48-2.49).
N o r m a l User. (2.50-2.51).
R o a d - R a i l Negotiating Committees. (2.52).
Entry to the R o a d Haulage Industry.
(2.53-2.54)
S u m m a r y and Conclusions. (2.55).
CHAPTER 3
Road Transport of Goods in Great Britain Today
The Vehicle Fleet—Sizes, N u m b e r s and Licences.
(3.1-3.3).
T h e Operators' Fleet—Sizes and Licences.
(3.4-3.7)
T h e Organisation of the M a r k e t for Haulage
Services. (3.8-3.10).
Competition in R o a d Haulage. (3.11).
Operations of R o a d G o o d s T r a n s p o r t .
(3.12-3.16)
T h e T r e n d from Rail to R o a d . (3.17-3.20).
L o a d Factors. (3.21-3.24).
C u s t o m e r Satisfaction. (3.25-3.26).
Bankruptcy in the R o a d Haulage Industry.
(3.27-3.37)
Summary. (3.38).
CHAPTER 4
Regulation of Road Haulage in Other Countries
..
T h e C o m m o n M a r k e t . (4.4-4.13).
N a t i o n a l T r a n s p o r t Policies. (4.5-4.8).
T h e Action P r o g r a m m e . (4.9-4.13).
United States of America. (4.14-4.20).
T h e Inter-State C o m m e r c e Commission.
(4.16-4.17)
T h e Agricultural Sector. (4.18-4.19).
Present United States Policy. (4.20).
J a p a n , Ceylon a n d Australia. (4.21-4.26).
Sweden. (4.27-4.28).
Conclusions on Overseas Regulation of R o a d
T r a n s p o r t of G o o d s . (4.29-4.31).
33
CHAPTER 5
Method of Approach
..
...
..
..
T h e Safety of the Public. (5.4).
T h e Efficiency of R o a d T r a n s p o r t . (5.5).
I m p a c t on Amenity a n d Environment. (5.6).
Use of the Railways. (5.7).
R o a d Congestion. (5.8).
Co-ordination. (5.9-5.11).
Public Attitudes to the Policy Objectives.
(5.12-5.15)
41
CHAPTER 6
Licensing and Safety
Introduction. (6.1).
T h e Safety of Lorries. (6.2-6.14).
T h e Accident Record. (6.2-6.4).
T h e Present Situation as Regards Lorry Main­
tenance, Safe L o a d i n g and H o u r s of Drivers.
(6.5-6.14).
T h e Contribution of Licensing to Safety.
(6.15-6.32).
Use of Present System of Licensing as a Dis­
ciplinary Measure. (6.16-6.18).
44
T h e Argument that Licensing is a Protection
against Disregard of Safety t h r o u g h " Ex­
cessive " Competition. (6.19-6.32).
Possible Modification of Licensing to Secure
Greater Safety. (6.33-6.47):
Enforcement of Suspension or Revocation.
(6.39-6.41)
Duplication of Punishment. (6.42).
Duality of the Licensing Authority's Role.
(6.43)
Responsibility for Safe Operation. (6.44-6.47)
Measures other than Licensing for Effecting
safety. (6.48-6.59):
Maintenance of Lorries. (6.49-6.50).
Overloading of Lorries. (6.51).
Drivers' H o u r s . (6.52).
Licensing of Lorry Drivers. (6.53).
Qualification Requirements for Hauliers.
(6.54-6.59)
Cost of Enforcing Safety Rules. (6.60).
The Role of the Courts.
(6.61).
Summary and Conclusions. (6.62).
CHAPTER 7
Licensing and Efficiency
..
. . . .
..
Measurement of Efficiency. (7.2-7.4).
Limits Imposed by Licensing. (7.5-7.9).
General Effect on Efficiency of Licensing Restric­
tions. (7.10-7.14).
T h e Control of Capacity and the Price of
Licences. (7.15-7.17).
T h e Bias Imparted by Licensing to Own Account
Operation. (7.18-7.19).
T h e Case for Quantity Control by Licensing as
an Aid to Efficiency. (7.20-7.22).
Haulage as a " Public Service ". (7.23).
Control of Rates as an Aid t o Efficiency. (7.24)
Direct Costs of Licensing. (7.25).
Summary and Conclusions. (7.26).
57
CHAPTER 8
Licensing and Amenity
T h e Physical Effects of R o a d T r a n s p o r t o n
Environment. (8.1-8.2).
Noise. (8.3).
Exhaust Gases. (8.4-8.5).
T h e Role of Licensing in Securing Amenity.
(8.6-8.8)
Direct Ways of Protecting Amenity. (8.9-8.10)
Summary and Conclusions. (8.11).
64
CHAPTER 9
Licensing and the Railways
The Effects of Licensing on the Railways.
(9.1-9.12)
Possible Amendment of Licensing to Influence
More Traffic to Rail. (9.13-9.32):
The Scope for Transfer from Road to Rail.
(9.14-9.16)
The Need to Control Own Account Work.
(9.17-9.19)
More Stringent Proof of Need. (9.20-9.22)
Guidance to Licensing Authorities. (9.23).
Difficulties in Assessing Need. (9.24).
Justice as Between Consignors. (9.25).
Denial of Licence to Certain Broad Traffics.
(9.26-9.30)
An Administrative or Judicial System of
Control. (9.31-9.32).
Alternatives to Licensing as a Way of Influencing
the Road/Rail Balance. (9.33-9.50):
Control of Quantity by Quota. (9.34-9.37).
Limitation of Quantity by Taxation.
(9.38-9.41)
Control of Rates. (9.42-9.47).
Increasing the Attraction of Rail Services.
(9.48-9.50)
Summary and Conclusions. (9.51).
66
C H A P T E R 10
Licensing and Congestion
..
Introduction. (10.1)
The Lorry as a Cause of Congestion, (10.2-10.4)
The Lorry on Trunk Routes. (10.5-10.8)
Lorries Under Way in Cities and Towns.
(10.9-10.11)
Lorries Stopped in Towns. (10.12-10.15).
The Effect of Licensing on Congestion.
(10.16-10.19)
Amendment of Licensing to Reduce Congestion.
(10.20-10.24):
(a) By General Influence on Lorries.
(10.20-10.22)
(b) By Specific Application to Congestion.
(10.23-10.24)
Other Ways of Reducing Congestion.
(10.25-10.29)
Summary and Conclusions. (10.30-10.31).
77
C H A P T E R 11
The C Licence
..
Criticisms of C Operation. (11.2-11.4).
Review of Criticisms. (11.5-11.11).
83
Ways of Reducing the " Waste " of C Capacity.
(11.12).
Curtailment of t h e N u m b e r of C Vehicles.
(11.13-11.22)
Removal of Present Restrictions o n C Operators.
(11.23).
S u m m a r y and Conclusions. (11.24).
C H A P T E R 12
Track Costs
T h e General Relevance of Track Costs to
Licensing. (12.1-12.5).
Evidence from t h e British Railways Board.
(12.6-12.7)
Evidence from t h e Ministry of T r a n s p o r t .
(12.8-12.9)
Evidence from R o a d Interests. (12.10-12.12).
Evidence from the R o a d Research L a b o r a t o r y .
(12.13-12.14)
Review of T r a c k Cost Studies. (12.15-12.18).
Social Costs a n d Benefits. (12.19).
H o w F a r Lorries Pay their T r a c k Costs.
(12.20-12.21)
Licensing and T r a c k Costs. (12.22-12.23).
S u m m a r y a n d Conclusions. (12.24).
C H A P T E R 13
Proposals made to the Committee for the Reform of
the Licensing System within its present Broad
Framework
..
..
..
..
..
Control of A Licensed Hauliers. (13.3-13.5).
B Licences. (13.6-13.7).
Contract A Licences. (13.8-13.9).
Lack of Information for Licensing Authorities.
(13.10-13.11)
Suggestions for N a t i o n a l and Local Licences.
(13.12)
Legalistic Administration of the System.
(13.13-13.14)
Appeal Machinery. (13.15-13.17).
Hire of Vehicles under C Licences. (13.18-13.21)
F a n n e r s ' Concession. (13.22-13.23).
Takeover of Limited Companies. (13.24-13.25).
Holding C o m p a n i e s ' C Licences. (13.26).
Holding Companies a n d C o n t r a c t A Licences.
(13.27)
D u r a t i o n of Licences. (13.28).
Display of Licence Conditions. (13.29).
Definition of Capacity of Vehicles. (13.30).
Licensing by Capacity of Fleet. (13.31),
Licensing of Trailers. (13.32).
88
95
Definition of " G o o d s Vehicle ". (13.33).
Deposits from Applicants and Objectors. (13.34)
Use of Drivers N o t Employed by Licensee.
(13.35)
Exemption of Vehicles Operating within Limited
Radii. (13.36).
Conclusions. (13.37-13.38).
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
List of Bodies and Persons who Submitted Evidence
to the Committee
..
102
Statistics
106
C O M M I T T E E ON C A R R I E R S ' L I C E N S I N G Report T o the R t . H o n . T o m Fraser, M.P., Minister of T r a n s p o r t Introduction
0.1 W e were appointed by y o u r predecessor the Rt. H o n . Ernest Marples,
M.P., on the 18th October, 1963 with terms of reference:
" I n the light of present day conditions, to examine the operation and
effects of the system of carriers' licences first introduced by the R o a d and
Rail Traffic Act 1933, a n d as subsequently modified by s t a t u t e ; a n d to m a k e
recommendations."
W e now have the h o n o u r to submit our R e p o r t .
0.2 Following o u r a p p o i n t m e n t we issued a general invitation to interested
parties to let us have evidence in the form of m e m o r a n d a . In addition we wrote
t o 165 persons and organisations w h o m we t h o u g h t to have a special interest in
carriers' licensing, explicitly to draw their attention to our task and to the general
invitation we had issued.
0.3 W e received written evidence from 173 Associations a n d individuals,
singly or in c o m b i n a t i o n , some of whom amplified their evidence in further sub­
missions in response to our enquiries, so t h a t in all we received 168 m e m o r a n d a .
28 organisations a n d individuals accepted o u r invitation t o give oral evidence.
A list of those who have given evidence is attached at Appendix A of this report.
0.4 W e wish to express to all these many people our appreciation of the help
they gave us in our task. All h a d clearly given careful t h o u g h t to the views they
p u t before us, a n d m a n y m u s t have spent m u c h time a n d effort in preparation.
Since the views of some conflicted directly with those of others, we have in­
evitably n o t been able to endorse them all, but aii have found a place in our
studies. T h e thoroughness, courtesy and patience we met t h r o u g h o u t o u r task
have been a great help, and we are most grateful to everyone concerned.
0.5 W e met o n 25 days in all, of which 14 were devoted in whole or in p a r t to
the hearing of oral evidence. Variously we attended public inquiries held by
Licensing Authorities into applications for carriers' licences, hearings on appeal
before t h e T r a n s p o r t T r i b u n a l and roadside checks by y o u r D e p a r t m e n t o n the
mechanical fitness of goods vehicles.
0.6 W e have been m o s t excellently served by our Secretary, M r . J. M . M o o r e ,
D.S.C. W e have received collectively and individually from h i m a m u c h higher
degree of assistance than we had a right to expect. His experience has been of
butstanding benefit in unravelling the many technicalities with which we were
faced. He has skilfully kept our work well ordered, and our Agenda logical and
well organised. His contribution to the drafting of the Report has been of the
utmost value. Our thanks are due beyond measure to Mr. Moore.
0.7 He has been most capably supported by Mr. A. J. Rdsenfeld and in turn
by Messrs. J. W. Baker, J. R. Fells, P.R. Caswell and D . O . McCreadie; and we
have all been much indebted to Mr. P. J. Reed, M.B.E. and Miss M. S. Hickey,
who have untiringly seen to our papers and other needs. To all of them we
express our gratitude.
General
Approach
0.8 Our terms of reference were perhaps deceptively concise. At first reading
they might seem to suggest that our task was narrow and that we should be
concerned only with the details of the present licensing system and its operation.
A s Chapter 13 below will show, certainly enough points were put to us in evi­
dence, both orally and in writing, dealing exclusively with such matters, to
provide us with material for an extensive detailed review of the system.
0.9 We had no hesitation in deciding that a limited approach would be wrong,
and that we had to take a wider view. Your predecessor indicated in the House
of Commons, in announcing his intention to put our work in hand, that the
Committee's task would be " to re-examine the fundamental bases and working
of the licensing system "* (a statement to which we drew attention in inviting
evidence). Clearly we could not carry out this remit without considering the
principles underlying the licensing system. And even without this guidance, it
soon became clear to us that we would have to examine the licensing system in
terms of its original aims and of other objectives which we thought that govern­
ment might wish to consider. Only thus would we be able to give you our views
o n h o w it has worked, and how, if at all, it should be changed.
0.10 We have therefore tried to address ourselves widely to the problems put
before us. These problems proceed almost infinitely onwards one from another
in ever-widening scale and implication. Hard though it is to draw a boundary,
we have thought it right not to pursue matters whose direct connection with
licensing was somewhat tenuous. Some problems we considered to be outside
our terms o f reference yet well within the field of general transport policy. In
such cases we have felt it right to draw attention to relevant considerations that
we have encountered in the course of our enquiries and study and to say how
licensing might bear upon them. We have not, however, attempted complete
statements o f these problems or comprehensive analyses of possible solutions.
It is thus that we have nothing to say as to the extent of public ownership of
road transport of goods. We make no recommendations as to where lies the
appropriate balance of social and economic advantage between road and rail.
N o r explicitly do we discuss the precise nature and degree of co-ordination,
integration or similar joint working between forms of transport which ought to
prevail. All these matters, we felt, involved considerations of general transport
policy on which it was not for us to proffer views.
*House of C o m m o n s Official R e p o r t , 2 9 t h A p r i l , 1963 C o l . 739.
2
1
Glossary
0.11 It is convenient to explain here our use throughout this report of certain
words as terms of art:
" lorry "
as meaning any road vehicle constructed or adapted
for the carriage of goods (and therefore including
vans and many specialised vehicles);
" heavy " lorries
as meaning those weighing more than three tons
unladen;
" hire or reward "
to denote carriage of goods for others (i.e. under a
carriers' A, A Contract or B licence) as opposed to
" own a c c o u n t "
to denote carriage of goods solely in connection with
the trade or business of the owner of the vehicle (i.e.
under a carriers C licence);
" road haulage "
or " road hauliers
as applying solely to the carriage or haulage of goods
for hire or reward (and not therefore including
carriage or haulage " on own a c c o u n t " ) ;
operator
as applying to any holder of a carriers licence.
CHAPTER 1
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations 1.1 In Chapters 2, 3 and 4 we set out briefly the history of the system of
carriers' licensing and its present form, we survey the industry operating
under that system a n d we review the way some other countries regulate the
road transport of goods. The most i m p o r t a n t points in this part of our R e p o r t
can be summarised as follows:
(i) The present system of licensing, after 30 years of evolution, is now an
elaborate process of regulation of what lorries may carry, and provides
a sanction (albeit little used) against the unsafe use of the r o a d s by
lorry operators. (Paragraphs 2.1-2.55)
(ii) Circumstances have changed profoundly since the introduction of
licensing. Lorries are now the main means of carrying goods in this
country. (Paragraph 2.2)
(iii) Most of the work is done by roughly 325,000 heavy lorries.
3.2)
(Paragraph
(iv) C licensed vehicles account for nearly half the work done by heavy
lorries. (Paragraph 3.14)
(v) Lorry traffic has grown in recent years mainly because the industries
which find road transport best for their needs have grown relatively t o
those industries for which rail is the best form of transport. (Paragraphs
3.17-3.19)
(vi) There was no evidence that users are dissatisfied with the services of
the road haulage industry. (Paragraph 3.26)
(vii) The rate of bankruptcy in road haulage is not unduly high, a n d does
n o t suggest any serious lack of stability in the industry. (Paragraphs
3.27-3.37)
(viii) Although local circumstances vary widely and in important basic
respects, most foreign countries regulate road transport of goods
fairly closely. (Paragraphs 4.1-4.17)
(ix) But in the few cases where there is little restriction, this seems to have
brought benefits, without any dire consequences. (Paragraphs 4.18-4.19
and 4.23-4.28)
1.2 In Chapters 5-13 we examine the licensing system against the aims of
policy which we think government might have as regards road transport of
goods. We also look at the question of C licensed operation and of track costs,
and set out some of the many detailed proposals m a d e to us for reform of the
present system. O u r main conclusions on these matters can be summarised as
follows:
POSSIBLE AIMS OF POLICY
(i) The main possible objectives of government policy in regulating road
transport of goods a r e :
the promotion of the safety of the public;
the promotion of efficiency in road transport operations;
the reduction of any harmful effects of road transport on amenity
and environment;
the promotion of increased use of available rail facilities for ihe
movement of g o o d s ;
the reduction or control of congestion on the roads. (Paragraphs
5.3-5.8)
(ii) The consideration of licensing in terms of these five objectives makes
it unnecessary for us to consider co-ordination of transport as a separate
objective of transport policy. (Paragraphs 5.9-5.11)
LICENSING A N D SAFETY
(iii) Licensing has not had any significant bearing on road safety.
graphs 6.15-6.32)
(Para­
(iv) N o practicable system of quantity control can achieve greater safety.
(Paragraph 6.33)
(v) A revocable permit to carry goods can have a vital place as a disciplinary
measure. (Paragraphs 6.37-6.38)
(vi) Removal of a conspicuous permit plate from any lorry whose ovvncr's
permit has been revoked or which has been found on the road in bad
repair or overloaded can provide a simple means of enforcing revocation
of a permit and a ready and effective deterrent to these offences.
(Paragraphs 6.39-6.40)
(vii) Action can with advantage be increased to detect and punish offences
against safety. (Paragraphs 6.48-6.52)
LICENSING A N D EFFICIENCY
(viii) The restrictions imposed by licensing reduce efficiency, and licensing as
a whole offers no off-setting advantages in this field. (Paragraphs 7.10­
7.14)
LICENSING A N D AMENITY
(ix) Quantity control by licensing cannot usefully check the potential of
lorries for nuisance, which is best met by attacking the causes of the
noise and smoke they make. (Paragraphs 8.6-8.10)
LICENSING A N D THE RAILWAYS
(x) It is for government to decide whether steps should be taken to increase
the carriage of goods by rail relative to their carriage by r o a d ; in so
deciding, it would be important to balance the possible gains against
possible losses. (Paragraphs 9.2-9.3)
(xi) Licensing has not in recent years helped the railways.
9.6-9.12)
(Paragraphs
(xii) It c a n n o t be made to do so without an inordinately large and complex
administrative machine and without placing a heavy burden on industry
a n d trade. (Paragraphs 9.13-9.32)
(xiii) If the policy was to divert goods traffic from road to rail, taxation of
lorries and preferably the increasing of the attractions of rail service are
likely to be m o r e efficient instruments than any attempt to use licensing.
(Paragraphs 9.38-9.41 and 9.48-9.50)
LICENSING A N D
CONGESTION'
(xiv) Licensing has not been and cannot be a useful way of reducing or
controlling road congestion. (Paragraphs 10.18-10.24)
O W N A C C O U N T O P E R A T I O N
(xv) There is little inefficiency in C licensed operation, and what there is can
best be reduced by allowing traders and manufactures to use their
lorries free of restriction as to what they may carry. (Paragraphs
11.3-11.11 and 11.23)
T R A C K COSTS
(xvi) We cannot give a final answer to the question of track costs.
graph 12.21)
(Para­
(xvii) T h e present situation as to track costs does not require the continuation
of any system of quantity control of lorries through licensing; nor
would such a system be required for making any change in the situation.
(Paragraphs 12.22)
P R O P O S A L S T O T H E COMMITTEE FOR REFORM O F THE DETAILS O F T H E PRESENT SYSTEM
(xviii) In view of our conclusions under each of the heads under which we
have looked at licensing, there is no call on us to pursue in depth the
m a n y proposals made to us for reform of its details.
(Paragraphs
13.1-13.2)
(xix) The number of these proposals suggest that the present system is a long
way from satisfying even those who agree with its present basis.
(Paragraph 13.38)
(xx) T h e proposals also show the complexity of the apparatus of licensing
which has grown up. (Paragraph 13.38).
General Conclusion as to Present System of Licensing
1.3 Neither the present system of licensing nor any variant of it based on
control of the number of lorries and restriction of what lorries may carry offers
a useful way to achieve what we think might be the main aims of government
policy in regulating carriage of goods by road. In three respects such licensing
acts adversely. It reduces efficiency. It tends to confer positions of privilege.
And it tends to add to congestion on the roads.
Recommendations
1.4 We therefore r e c o m m e n d :
(i) The abolition of all restrictions on the capacity of the road haulage industry
and on the work for which a lorry may be used. There should be no
statutory bar to entry to the hire or reward sector of the road transport
industry. Traders and manufacturers should be allowed to use their
own vehicles for any work they choose to undertake, including carriage
for hire or reward.
(ii) The introduction of a system of permits to ply as a carrier of goods
(whether for hire or reward or on own account or both). These permits
should be available on demand, but held subject to good behaviour as
regards all aspects of safety of lorries. T h e issuing authority should
have power to suspend, revoke, or curtail any permit for offences
against lorry safety or for failure to comply with prescribed standards
in this field. This power should be used vigorously.
(iii) The introduction of a system of carriers'
The plate would be forfeit during any
or curtailment of the owner's permit
removed from any lorry found to be
loaded.
permit plates, one to each lorry.
period of suspension, revocation
to ply and would be summarily
mechanically defective or over­
(iv) The use of measures other than the present licensing system to pursue any
further aims of policy which the government might have.
1.5 We believe that our first recommendation will commend itself to most
people outside the road transport industry. We are also aware that it may be
looked on with apprehension by some road hauliers, who may be fearful of the
loss of the protection which the present system affords them. But wc think that
efficient and enterprising operators have nothing to fear, and indeed much to
gain from the removal of the irksome restriction a b o u t which many of them
complained to us. We are sure they would find after a little experience that for
them, as for the country generally, the change had been for the better.
CHAPTER 2
History and Present F o r m of the Licensing S y s t e m (i)
The Background
to
History
Licensing
2.1 The present system of carriers' licensing derives its statutory authority
from the Road Traffic Act 1960, which is a consolidation of previous measures.
The main framework of the system was first established over 30 years ago, by
the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933. This framework has been modified in minor
degree by subsequent Acts of Parliament, and the application of some of its
principles has been slowly transmuted by process of case law. But, in essence,
the system has stood unchanged for 30 years.
2.2 It is to be noted that this durability cannot have been because of the
permanence of the basic circumstances which led to licensing. These circum­
stances have changed profoundly. Up to 1933 the railways were the main carriers
of goods and were subject to strict controls. Road transport, carrying a relatively
small proportion of the country's goods traffic, was free from almost any obli­
gation or limitation. N o w the railways enjoy almost complete commercial
freedom, but carry only the lesser share of the traffic, while road transport, the
predominant carrier, is hedged around with restrictions, though not with
obligations.
Conditions before
Licensing
2.3 In 1921, the railway companies were required by the Railway Act of that
year to revise their charges scheme. It took until 1928 to bring the new schedules
into effect. The schedules were simpler than those they replaced, but were still
based on the principle of charging what the traffic could stand. The charge was
thus in part decided by the basic value of the goods concerned. Low priced raw
materials were carried at low freight rates, regardless of the cost to the railways
of doing the work. The schedules were designed to secure equity between traders,
uniformity as between one place of consignment and another and as between one
transaction and another. Against the old background of railway monopoly the
arrangements seemed appropriate. Yet in this very period while the new railway
schedules were being produced, the railways' virtual monopoly of all but short
distance freight was being attacked for the first time. The new schedules made it
more difficult for them to meet the commercial challenge. With charges related
to the value of the goods carried rather than to the cost of carrying them, with
an obligation not to discriminate in their charges to similar users, and with a
common carrier obligation to boot, the railways were extremely vulnerable to
the aggressive and fast developing road transport industry.
2.4 The end of the First World War released on to the roads many m o t o r
vehicles for use, virtually without restriction, as commercial goods vehicles.
Road hauliers needed little c a p i t a l and their unit of operation was extremely
flexible. They were able to provide a personal and direct service and, at the same
time, to relate charges closely to the cost of the individual load and journey. As­
a result, the railways tended to lose to road their more valuable traffics (i.e. those
where the profit margin was greatest) and to be left with low value traffics often
carried at a substantial loss. In these circumstances, the small haulier could and
did flourish.
2.5 There can be no d o u b t that, at the same time as it made its first serious­
inroads into rail freight, the road transport industry earned a bad name for the
overdriving of both men and machines in a fiercely competitive situation. It has
also been strongly argued, both at the time and more recently, that this period
of free competition resulted in excessive rate cutting, financial anarchy and
instability damaging to the industry and so to its customers. It is particularly
difficult to judge the extent to which these claims were justified. Some evidence
we have received suggests that the position may not have been so bad as h a s
sometimes been maintained. Because of the relevance of the point to our work,
we sought out specially the recollections of some of the people who had direct
experience of road haulage before licensing was introduced. While their views
differed, we gained the impression that competition did not prevent transport
users from getting a reliable service from road hauliers. No doubt many small
operators got into financial difficulties, particularly when rates were generally
low in the depression years. But in the circumstances of the times it would
perhaps have been surprising if this had not been so. Work done by Professor
Walters of Birmingham University in 1958 suggested that the bankruptcy rate
among hauliers before licensing was introduced was lower than in some other
trades consisting largely of small men, and that it declined from the level in the
immediate post-war years in spite of the depression. This tends to support the
view that the troubles of the industry may have loomed larger than was strictly
justified. They were perhaps the natural growing pains of a new industry made
u p mainly of small operators, rather than the malaise of a chronically over­
competitive situation.
2.6 Nevertheless, the view was widely held in the late 1920's that:
(i) in the interest of safety and amenity, some controls would have to be
imposed on the road haulage industry, and
(ii) that the greater commercial freedom enjoyed by road as compared with
rail would lead to an inequitable and uneconomic distribution of good
as between road and rail.
Royal Commission
on
Transport
2.7 T o examine this situation a Royal Commission on T r a n s p o r t
appointed in 1928:
was
" To take into consideration the problems arising out of the growth of road
traffic, and with a view to securing the employment of the available means
of transport in Great Britain (including transport by sea, coastwise and by
ferries) to the greatest public advantage, to consider and report what
measures if any, should be adopted for their better regulation a n d control,
and, so far as desirable in the public interest, to p r o m o t e their co-ordinated
working and d e v e l o p m e n t " .
T h e Commission resolved its task into three distinct spheres:
(i) that concerning the free and easy movement of motorised vehicles on
the roads and their control, mainly from the point of view of safety;
(ii) that concerning the licensing of public service vehicles and the co­
ordination of the various forms of passenger transport; a n d
(iii) that concerning the general co-ordination and development of all
available means of transport, taking particularly into account the rapid
growth of road haulage.
Three separate reports were issued dealing with each of these aspects in turn.
T h e first and second were the genesis of the R o a d Traffic Act 1930, in which
public service vehicle licensing was introduced. T h e Act also embraced speed
limits, driving licences, vehicle lighting, maximum weights and dimensions,
construction and use of vehicles, and compulsory insurance, and placed limit­
ations on the hours of drivers of commercial vehicles.
2.8 Control of goods vehicles was considered in the third report. The report
contained, inter alia, the following r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s :
(i) that heavy goods vehicles (over 4 tons unladen weight) should pay
considerably more duty for each successive extra ton weight, as a means
of discouraging the use of heavy vehicles and of protecting the railways
from further loss of traffic, in the national interest;
(ii) that road haulage should be licensed so as to put the industry on to an
organised basis a n d as an essential precedent to any a t t e m p t to co­
ordinate transport generally; and
(iii) that it should be a condition of issue of carriers' licences that the
authorising Traffic Commissioners should have regard to the fitness of
the vehicle concerned a n d the wages and conditions of employees of the
applicant for a licence.
Salter
Conference
2.9 These recommendations were not immediately implemented. In April
1932, the Minister of Transport convened a Conference of railway and road
haulage representatives under the independent chairmanship of Sir A r t h u r
Saltcr (now Lord Salter) to consider:
(a) the incidence of highway costs in relation to the contribution of the
different classes of mechanically propelled vehicles;
(b) the nature and extent of the regulations which, in view of m o d e r n
economic developments, should be applied to goods transport by r o a d
and rail, and
(c) in general, any measures which might assist the rail and r o a d industries
to " carry o u t their functions under equitable conditions, which
adequately safeguard the interests of trade and industry " .
2.10 The Conference Report stated:
" in our recommendations we can only offer an alleviation of one of the
principal causes of (railway) loss, by dealing with any existing unfairness in
the incidence of highway costs and inadequacy of the regulations to protect
the public and other users of the roads against undesirable forms of road
traffic by goods vehicles " .
2.11 The Conference did not seem unduly worried about the handicap of the
railways in being tied to ad valorem charging schemes. They said:
" it is the fact that the railways are so organised (in large units) and not the
existence of statutory regulation, which mainly accounts for the handicap
of the railways in this respect ".
In his most helpful oral evidence to us, Lord Salter drew on his remarkable
m e m o r y to add that in any event, drastic departure from the old railway pattern
of rates would have been unthinkable when so much of industry had been
located on the expectation of those rates. An abrupt change to rates based on
the costs of each movement would have been disastrous.
2.12 As to highway costs, the Conference worked out, from information to
hand and by some rough and ready estimating, a detailed scheme of taxation
for road vehicles which, when taken together with fuel tax, would in their
estimation fairly meet the track costs of road goods vehicles. T h e exercise in­
volved working out the total annual " c o s t " for r o a d s ; deciding the share of
this cost appropriate to goods vehicles; and calculating tax rates for each class
o f goods vehicle, according to the cost it imposed, so as to bring in the revenue
to cover that cost. With the statistical and other information available at the
time, some of the data had to be estimated, with little to go on. But nobody else
was in a position to do better. The Conference of course recognised that if the
basic facts changed the taxes they proposed would have to be recalculated to
reflect the new circumstances.
2.13 Both the Royal Commission on T r a n s p o r t and the Salter Conference
regarded the establishment of satisfactory working conditions in road haulage
a n d better maintenance of vehicles as compelling arguments for some kind of
licensing. P a r a g r a p h 99 of the Salter Conference Report says:
" we agree without hesitation that all such vehicles should be required to
have licences which are c o n d i t i o n a l . . . also upon the observance of proper
conditions as to fair wages and conditions of service, and the maintenance
of vehicles in a state of fitness ".
They recognised implicitly however (see p a r a g r a p h 2.14 below) that the
attainment of these ends would not necessarily mean limiting the quantity of
road transport.
2.14 The Salter Conference gave as the main reason for advocating a system
of quantitative restriction of road haulage the evil effects of excessive competi­
tion. W e c a n n o t d o better than to quote at length from the report in order to
give an idea of how the balance of advantage was seen by the Conference:
" We a p p r o a c h a much more difficult question when we consider whether
such a licensing system should be used to deal in any way with what the
R o a d Haulage Association rightly term the evils of overcrowding and
unbridled competition in the transport industry. It is clear that these evils
exist and that though they will be reduced by the changes in the incidence
of highway costs which we propose, they will not be thus entirely removed.
Any individual has at present an unlimited right to enter the h a u l a g e
industry, without any regard to the pressure on the roads or any existing
excess of transport facilities. He is able to purchase his vehicle on t h e
instalment system and is often tempted to force his way in by offering rates
which are completely unremunerative and necessarily lead to b a n k r u p t c y
which, nevertheless, does not discourage others—or perhaps even himself—
from following the same course in perpetual succession. This unrestricted
liberty is fatal to the organisation of the industry in a form suitable to a
carrier service purporting to serve the public. On the other hand we a r e
equally impressed with the evil of any system which would prevent trade
and industry from securing the form of transport which is adapted to its
ever changing needs at the lowest practicable cost that can be obtained on a
salutary basis. Every form of transport needs adaptation to the changing
requirements of economic enterprise; and any system which discouraged
this adaptation would obviously be against the public i n t e r e s t " .
2.15 T o meet the aims of the Conference as to condition of vehicles and of
working of drivers, and as to competition in road transport, the Conference
recommended t h a t :
(a) all goods vehicle operators should be licensed;
(b) the grant of a licence for both public and private carriers should be
conditional on the payment of reasonable wages, the observance o f
proper conditions of service for drivers and an undertaking to maintain
the vehicles properly;
(c) a licence should not be granted to a public haulier where it would b e
against the public interest, that interest being determined in terms of:
(i) any excess in the existing transport facilities suitable to meet t h e
public requirements to be served by the applicant;
(ii) any actual or prospective congestion or over-loading of the r o a d s ;
(iii) any convictions registered against the applicant or his employees
for the previous year in respect of offences in connection with his
road transport vehicles or previous bankruptcy;
(d) licences for own account operators should be issued without restriction,
but the operators should not be permitted to carry for hire or r e w a r d
outside a radius of 10 miles from base.
2.16 In applying for a licence the applicant was to specify the carrying,
capacities as well as the registration numbers and unladen weights of the vehicles
which he wished to have licensed, and these particulars should appear on t h e
vehicle. Licensed vehicles should also carry a plate giving the o\vner's licence
number and an individual number for each vehicle.
2.17 T h e Conference also recommended that drivers should be required t o
keep records so that the limitation on driving hours could more readily b e
enforced.
2.18 T h e Conference made few recommendations on the subject of co­
ordination between road and rail but expressed the hope that the good relations
between road and rail representatives in the Conference might bear fruit in
collaboration thereafter with a view to the co-ordination of services between
road and rail and in particular the development of combined services making use
of containers. They also supported the view of the Royal Commission that it was
not " in the national interest to encourage further diversion of heavy goods
traffic from the railways to the roads " and recommended that " the Minister of
Transport should obtain powers to prohibit by regulation classes of traffic which
are borne by rail and which having regard to the character of the commodity
and the distance together, are unsuitable for road haulage, from being transferred
in future to the road "'.
Action on the Salter Conference''s
Recommendations
2.19 The Conference^ recommended schedules of excise tax on goods
vehicles were put into effect, virtually unaltered, by the Finance Act 1933. The
vehicle tax position remains substantially unchanged to this day. The Con­
ference's proposed level of petrol tax was in fact the then prevailing rate, and
this was continued, at Sd. per gallon. As the untaxed retail price of petrol was
then only about 1 U d . a gallon, the tax was about 4 2 % of the total price. T h e
cash a m o u n t of the fuel tax today is of course much higher (currently 3s. 3d. a
gallon) b u t this is on an untaxed price of Is. 8d. and Is. lOd. per gallon for
standard grade petrol and derv (diesel oil) respectively, or 6 6 % and 6 4 %
respectively of the total retail price. It must also be borne in mind that the yields
from both taxes are now much higher, because of the great increase in the
number of goods vehicles.
2.20 T h e other recommendations of the Conference, as to licensing and
conditions in the road haulage industry, were incorporated with few significant
changes (notably the omission of any explicit reference to road congestion or of
any power for the Minister to prohibit road carriage for certain classes of traffic)
in the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933. The same Act also gave to the railways a
certain measure of freedom to negotiate freight rates with individual traders
subject to the approval of an independent rates tribunal. T h e Act was thus a
deliberate attempt to impose a balance on road/rail competition and thereby on
the distribution of goods between road and rail.
2.21 In essence the Act provided for three types of licence: the A licence for
public carriers; the B licence for traders carrying the goods of other people as
well as their o w n ; the C licence for manufacturers and traders carrying goods on
their own account only. In addition, provision was made for a special form of
A licence (the A Contract licence) where there was only one customer, with
w h o m the haulier had a contract for exclusive use of the vehicle for at least a
year. Issue of licences was made the responsibility of Licensing Authorities, who
were at the same time the Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners established under
the 1930 Act to control public service vehicle licensing. In considering the grant
of A or B licences, Licensing Authorities were required to have regard, inter alia
" to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring,
as well as those of persons providing facilities for transport " . They were to take
into account objections, on the grounds that grant would lead to over-provision
of suitable transport, from persons already providing transport facilities. But
grant of a C licence could only be withheld where the applicant had previously
had a licence revoked or suspended. All licences were m a d e conditional on the
applicant satisfying requirements as to the safety, construction and use o f
vehicles, and as to drivers' hours, the keeping of records and payment of p r o p e r
wages. Provision was made for appeal against the decisions of Licensing
Authorities, to a specially constituted tribunal with status akin to that of the
High Court.
Early Development
of the Licensing System,
and the War
Years
2 . 2 2 The licensing system as laid down in the R o a d and Rail Traffic Act 1933
came fully into effect in October 1934 (by which date all public haulage vehicles
had to be licensed). As the system got under v/ay, case law in the hearings before
the Licensing Authorities and the Road and Rail Traffic Appeal Tribunal began
to settle a number of important principles of application of the statute. These
included the following:
(i) " It is not sufficient for the applicant for an A licence to discharge the
burden of proving that there are persons ready and willing to employ
him. He must also satisfy the Licensing Authority that the haulage he
proposes to d o cannot for some reason be done by other carriers already
engaged in carriage, whether by road or rail " .
(Enston and C o m p a n y v. L o n d o n , Midland and Scottish Railway
Company, 1933).
(ii) [But] ". . . if the applicant is an operator already established during the
basic year it is sufficient to show some expansion in the business of his
customers . . .".
(Hawker v. Great Western and London, Midland and Scottish Railway
Companies, 1935).
(iii) " Another suggestion which was in substance made, was that the Licens­
ing Authority should make a classification of goods which should in
normal circumstances be carried by rail and in normal circumstances by
r o a d . We can find nothing in the Act even to suggest that it is part of the
duty of a Licensing Authority to make such a classification ".
( F o u r Amalgamated Railway Companies v. Bouts-Tillotson, 1936).
(iv) " . . . that the burden of proving an objection t h a t the applicants have
abstracted traffic from the objectors does not lie o n the objectors, but
that it is for the applicants to disprove the objection " .
(London, Midland and Scottish, G r e a t Western and London and N o r t h
Eastern Railway Companies v. M o t o r Carriers (Liverpool) Ltd., 1935).
(v) " It would not be in the public interest to grant a licence to carry goods
hitherto carried by another carrier, provided that the previous c a r r i e r s
facilities were suitable. The fact that the latter were slower did not render
them unsuitable in the absence of evidence t h a t a more expeditious
delivery was reasonably necessary t o the trader ".
(H. W. Hawker Ltd. v. Great Western a n d L o n d o n , Midland and Scot­
tish Railway Companies, 1936).
(vi) " that in considering whether objectors' facilities were suitable a
Licensing Authority ought to take into consideration neither the fact
that road rates were cheaper (unless they were uneconomic) nor the fact
that warehouse accommodation would be provided . . .".
(London, Midland and Scottish and London and N o r t h Eastern Railway
Companies v. Stevenson Transport Ltd., 1937).
(vii) " If the holder of an A licence applies for the authorisation of extra
vehicles to be normally used for carrying from a particular base, he must
first prove a need for these vehicles to carry goods outward from that
base. If he proves that need, evidence as to return loads may be helpful,
though not, strictly speaking, necessary. If he does not prove that need,
evidence as to return loads will not support his application ".
(Moss Brothers v. Southern Railway Company, 1935).
(viii) ". . . the Commissioner must not grant an ordinary A licence for
vehicles which would be principally used for the business of a single
customer, so that they were gem rally loaded only with the goods of that
customer, even though none of the vehicles would ever be used for the
purposes of a contract for the carriage of goods for a year ".
(Southern Railway C o m p a n y v. Hardy and Sons Ltd., Hardy and Sons
Ltd., v. Southern Railway Company, 1935).
(ix) " Where an applicant seeks an A licence for a n increased number of
vehicles on the ground that particular customers propose to use those
vehicles his proper course is to apply for contract licences under Section
7, Sub-Section 1 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act ".
(Ridgewell and C o m p a n y v. Southern Railway C o m p a n y , 1934).
(x) " An applicant who proposes to provide a new type of service, such as a
regular daily service, is not bound to satisfy the Licensing Authority that
the haulage he proposes to do cannot for some reason be done by other
carriers already engaged in carriage, whether by road or rail ".
(Smith v. London, Midland and Scottish Railway C o m p a n y , 1935).
(xi) " A coal merchant who is unable to discharge the ordinary burden of
proof should nevertheless be granted a B licence if:
(1) his business is genuine;
(2) he requires the vehicle for carrying goods in connection with his
own business and these goods cannot satisfactorily be carried
otherwise;
(3) taking the year as a whole the vehicle cannot be economically
operated unless used during the off season for hire or reward;
and providing a special condition be attached preventing him carrying
for hire save during the offseason and preventing wasteful competition ".
(Southern Railway Company v. Lambert, 1936).
2.23 These principles settled by case law sometimes had an important bearing
o n the whole course of development. But in its main features the system continued
unchanged u p to the outbreak of war in 1939. Its full operation was then formally
suspended to allow a greater freedom of administration more in key with the
needs of the times. But the framework of the system remained. The Licensing
Authorities, under a different title, issued " defence permits ", which were
broadly similar to licences, and followed the licence categories; b u t the p r o ­
cedure for consideration of applications was made simpler. (There were n o
public hearings or appeals to the Tribunal). Rationing of m o t o r fuel gave a n o t h e r
strong Governmental control over road transport. This control was strengthened
by the conferment in 1944 upon the G o v e r n m e n t s R o a d Haulage Organisation
(comprising most of the major long distance road operators, a n d operating u n d e r
direct government orders) of virtually monopoly powers. The main aim of policy
was to cut down consumption of fuel oil and rubber, and to this end the use of
rail transport was insisted on by the G o v e r n m e n t to the practical limit.
Nationalisation
and Denationalisation
Transport Acts of 1947 and 1953)
of Long
Distance
Road
Haulage
(The
2.24 In August 1946 licensing was reintroduced, but the old order did n o t
stand for long. The Transport Act of 1947 put long distance public road haulage,
together with the railways and inland waterways, into public ownership u n d e r
the British Transport Commission. T h e Act made little amendment to the car­
riers' licensing system itself, but exempted from licensing the C o m m i s s i o n ^
goods vehicles. All " long distance " road haulage concerns, apart from those in
certain specialised traffics, were acquired either voluntarily or compulsorily a n d
were transferred to the management of the Road Haulage Executive of the
Commission. (A long distance concern was defined as one more than half of
whose operations in 1946 entailed journeys of 40 miles or more during which
the vehicles went outside a radius of 25 miles from their operating centre). T h e
takeover and digestion of the many firms a n d assets involved inevitably t o o k
time and drew on much of the resources of the Commission and the Executive.
T h e processes of acquisition were not really completed until 1951. So during this
period not much experience was gained of the workings of the operational system
envisaged by the Act.
2.25 By December 1951, the British Transport Commission had, in addition
to the road haulage collection and delivery fleet of the railways, some 41,000
road haulage vehicles (i.e. about one quarter of the national A and B licensed
fleet). Those A and B licensed operators not taken over were only allowed t o
carry goods outside a 25 mile radius from their operating centre if they had a
permit granted by the Commission. C licensed vehicles were unaffected by the
Act and continued during the period to grow as competitors to rail and r o a d
haulage alike.
2.26 The Transport Act of 1953 sought to restore the essentials of the position
as in 1939. The Commission was to dispose as quickly as was reasonably practical
of the vehicles and property held for the purposes of the Road Haulage Executive
T h e vehicles sold were given A licences as of right for up to 5 years, after which
they came under the ordinary regime. In the event, reasonable offers were not
forthcoming for all that was put on sale, and under the Transport (Disposal of
R o a d Haulage) Act 1956, the Commission were relieved of their obligation to
dispose of all their vehicles. They were left with some 14,000 vehicles, a fleet big
enough then (as now) to make them far a n d away the biggest road haulage
undertaking in the country. This fleet was however made subject to the licensing
procedure in the ordinary way, but the initial grant of licences was m a d e
automatically for the vehicles then in the Commission^ hands.
Other Changes made by the Transport Act 1953
2.27 T h e 1953 Act also m a d e two other potentially important changes of
emphasis in the licensing system. The 1933 Act and the 1953 Act b o t h enjoined
the Licensing Authorities to have regard to the interests of the public generally.
But with a view to securing m o r e freedom in the issue of carriers' licences for
road goods vehicles, and thereby increasing competition, these criteria were
amended by the 1953 Act to give priority of consideration to the interests of trade
a n d industry, as users of transport, over those of the providers of transport (the
1933 Act had had no specific difference of emphasis as between user and
provider). The Licensing Authorities were in future to have regard " to the
interests of the public generally including primarily those of persons requiring
facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for
transport ". (Transport Act 1953, Section 9(1)).
2.28 The 1953 Act also specially empowered the Licensing Authorities for the
first time to consider charges and efficiency. The provisions were:
" in considering whether existing transport facilities arc to be treated as
suitable, the Licensing Authority shall have regard to the relative efficiency,
reliability and adequacy of the existing facilities at the date of the application
a n d the facilities which the applicant will provide if his application is
granted, and to all other relevant considerations, including, to such extent,
as may in all the circumstances appear proper, the charges made and to be
m a d e in respect of those facilities respectively ".
(Section 9(3)(b)).
Consolidation
of Earlier Legislation
into the Road Traffic Act, 1960
2.29 T h e R o a d Traffic Acts from 1930 to 1956 were consolidated in the Road
Traffic Act of 1960. Part IV of the latter Act is substantially the road haulage
licensing part of the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act, and is the present ruling
s t a t u t o r y basis of the goods licensing system.
(ii)
Carriers'
THE PRESENT LICENSING
SYSTEM
Licences
1
2.30 An operator must obtain the appropriate carriers licence before he may
use a goods vehicle on a road for the carriage of goods for hire or reward, or for
his own trade or business. A " g o o d s vehicle " is defined as a m o t o r vehicle or
trailer constructed or adapted for use for the carriage or haulage of goods.
There are 3 main types of carriers' licence and 1 sub-type:
THE PUBLIC CARRIER'S OR A LICENCE
T h e holder of an A licence may use the authorised vehicles for the carriage
of goods for hire or reward. N o conditions can be attached to this type of
licence, but an applicant for an A licence must make a declaration (which
has come to be k n o w n as his " normal user ") of the main work he intends
to do with the authorised vehicles. This declaration usually deals only with
traffic outward from the area of the vehicles' base, if he is not to risk his
licence, he must in general d o what he said he was going to d o ; but he is free
to do anything else which is compatible with compliance with his declar­
ation.
THE CONTRACT A LICENCE
Within the A category, a licence to operate a vehicle solely for the use
of one customer, and under a contract accordingly with a term of a t
least a year, is called a Contract A licence.
THE LIMITED C A R R I E R ^ OR B LICENCE
The holder of a B licence may use the authorised vehicles for the carriage o f
goods either in connection with any trade or business carried on by him o r ,
subject to any special conditions attached to the licence, for hire or reward.
Conditions usually limit the type of goods that may be carried, the persons
for whom goods may be carried, the area of operations, or some combin­
ation of these factors.
THE PRIVATE CARRIER^ OR C LICENCE
T h e holder of a C licence may use the authorised vehicles for the carriage
of goods in connection with a n y trade or business carried on by him but n o t
for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
2.31 A licence in any category may authorise the use of one or more vehicles.
An authorised vehicle is usually specified in the licence by its registration
number. However, where an applicant needs to hire vehicles from time to time,
vehicles may be authorised by enumeration and description in terms of unladen
weight. Trailers (which have no registration mark of their own) are authorised
by enumeration and description, usually in terms of unladen weight. A and C
licences arc normally issued for a period of 5 years. The normal currency of B
licences is 2 years. Short term licences may be issued for special purposes.
The Licensing A uthorities
2.32 Carriers" licences are granted by Licensing Authorities appointed by t h e
Minister of Transport. There are 11 Licensing Authorities, one for each of the
11 Traffic Areas into which Great Britain is divided. The Licensing Authority is
also the Chairman of Traffic Commissioners, who administer the licensing system
for buses and coaches. The functions of a Licensing Authority may also
be exercised by a deputy appointed by the Minister.
2.33 Each Licensing Authority has a permanent office in his Area with a staff
provided by the Ministry of Transport. This staff includes the Vehicle a n d
Traffic Examiners who, in co-operation with the police, are responsible for
enforcing the law on fitness of vehicles, on carriers' licensing and on drivers'
hours and records. Fees are charged for carriers' licences to cover the costs of
these offices.
Criteria for Grant of
Licences
2.34 A Licensing Authority must grant any application for a C licence unless
the applicant has previously had a c a r r i e r s licence revoked, suspended or
curtailed for misbehaviour. He must grant a Contract A licence if he is satisfied
that the vehicles concerned will be used exclusively for the purposes of an
appropriate contract for a period of not less than 1 year, unless he is satisfied
that in view of the applicants previous conduct as a carrier of goods, he is not a
fit person to hold a carriers' licence.
2.35 In dealing with an application relating to an A or B licence a Licensing
Authority has full power in his discretion to grant, t o gxu,J- in modified form, o r
to refuse, subject to the considerations and exceptions set out below. The
Minister cannot intervene in his decision. The Licensing Authority must have
regard to " the interests of the public generally including primarily those of
persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons
providing facilities for transport " .
2.36 Licensing Authorities must publish all applications for new A o r B
licences, or for variations extending the scope of such licences. There must be a
suitable opportunity for objections to be lodged (unless the application is of a
trivial nature, is for a new licence to replace an existing licence in respect of a
business which is being acquired by the applicant, or is for a licence for a period
not exceeding 3 months which is required for an urgent purpose). Applications
are published in a special j o u r n a l issued by each Licensing Authority weekly or
fortnightly and named " Applications and Decisions ".
2.37 Any person already providing facilities, by road or otherwise, for carriage
of goods for hire or reward in the district concerned is entitled to lodge an objec­
tion to an application. But the Licensing Authority is not required to take
account of an objection lodged by a B licence holder against an application for
an A licence. An objection to be relevant under the terms of the Road Traffic
Act must be made on one of the following g r o u n d s :
(a) that suitable transport facilities will, if the application is granted, be in
excess of requirements ;
(b) that any of the conditions of a c a r r i e r s licence held by the applicant has
not been complied with ;
(c) that the applicant has suffered a conviction for an offence, or pro­
hibition of the use of his vehicles, of the kind referred to in paragraphs
2.43 and 2.44 below.
2.38 Licensing Authorities have power to hold public inquiries to hear
evidence from applicants and objectors, and invariably do so in contested cases.
They may also d o so in cases which are not contested but in which they wish to
satisfy themselves of the bona fides of the applicant. Public inquiries arc held at
such places in the Traffic Area as may be convenient. Applicants are normally
expected to provide evidence from prospective customers who have had difficulty
in obtaining suitable transport facilities. The objectors may then try to show that
they can provide facilities adequate to the witness's needs. In considering whether
existing transport facilities are suitable the Licensing Authority must have
regard to their relative efficiency, reliability and adequacy, and all other relevant
considerations including, to the extent he thinks proper, the charges made.
The Transport
Tribunal
2.39 A n applicant or an objector who is dissatisfied with the decision of the
Licensing Authority can appeal to the T r a n s p o r t Tribunal.
2.40 T h e members of the Tribunal consist of the President who must be an
experienced lawyer, a n d two members, one a person experienced in transport
business a n d the other a person of experience in commercial affairs. Members
are appointed by Her Majesty on the joint recommendation of the Lord
Chancellor and the Minister of Transport.
2.41 Appeals under Part IV of the Road Traffic Act 1960 are heard by the
R o a d Haulage Appeals Division of the Tribunal which may at the discretion of
t h e President include persons nominated to a special panel by the Lord Chan­
cellor, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport. The
Tribunal is empowered to hear appeals not only on points of principle, but also
against the Licensing Authority's exercise of his discretion. A further appeal on
points of law is possible to the High Court. Appeals to the Tribunal are in
practice commonplace, those to the High C o u r t very rare.
Exemption
from the
System
2.42 Vehicles used for certain purposes* are exempt from the requirements
of the licensing system. T h e concession of widest effect is that applying to use
of " farmers' vehicles ". A goods vehicle used by a farmer solely to convey the
produce of, or articles required for the purposes of, his farm is classed as a
*' farmer's goods vehicle " and is exempt, while used solely for these purposes,
from the requirement to have any c a r r i e r s licence. As a further exemption,
which is unique, if the farmer does take out a C licence for his vehicle he may
use it not only to carry his own goods but also to carry for hire or reward the
goods of other farmersf in the same locality.
Revocation,
Suspension and Curtailment
of Carriers''
Licences
2.43
t h a t he
(a)
(b)
A Licensing Authority has power to revoke, suspend or curtail a licence
has granted for:
persistent or wilful breaches of the conditions of the licence;
frequent convictions for poor maintenance, excessive speed, over­
loading etc. of the vehicles or for infringement of the law on drivers'
hours and records;
(c) frequent prohibitions of the use of vehicles found unserviceable by
Vehicle Examiners (see p a r a g r a p h 2.45 below);
(d) a single conviction or prohibition for an offence of a wilful or partic­
ularly dangerous nature.
T h e Thirteenth Schedule t o the R o a d Traffic Act 1960 and the Regulations adding to that
S c h e d u l e may be loosely interpreted as freeing from the carriers' licensing system:
(a) vehicles used by a farmer solely t o carry his own p r o d u c e or goods required for his farm;
(b) the d r a w i n g of trailers by private cars (other t h a n for hire o r r e w a r d ) ;
(c) carriage of g o o d s in buses, c o a c h e s a n d taxis;
(d) funerals;
(c) use by, or o n behalf of local authorities of vehicles for sanitary and certain o t h e r
specified p u r p o s e s ;
( f ) police, fire brigade, a m b u l a n c e , a n d o t h e r fire fighting a n d rescue vehicles including
vehicles used to carry lifeboats;
(g) b r e a k d o w n vehicles;
(h) vehicles used by the a r m e d forces;
(i) vehicles on test;
(j) vehicles travelling limited distances along public r o a d s between p a r t s of private premises;
^k) vehicles used in r o a d m a i n t e n a n c e a n d r e p a i r s :
(I) vehicles used by dealers u n d e r a limited trade licence;
(m) c a r r i a g e of samples by a c o m m e r c i a l traveller o r the tools of t r a d e of the driver o r
passenger;
(n) c a r r i a g e of i n s t r u m e n t s or a p p a r a t u s by d o c t o r s , nurses a n d veterinary s u r g e o n s ; io) tower w a g o n s ; (p) pedestrian controlled vehicles;
( q ) vehicles with built in m a c h i n e r y (e.g. mobile cranes, e t c . ) ; t S e e p a r a g r a p h 13.22 below. 2.44 A and B licences may also be revoked, suspended or curtailed if t h e
holder of the licence:
(a) has made or procured to be made for the purposes of his application a
statement of fact which was false or a statement of intention or expect­
ation which has not been fulfilled;
(b) has placed other licence holders at an unfair disadvantage by persistently
charging rates below the cost of providing his transport services.
If so requested by the licence holder, a Licensing Authority must hold a public
inquiry before revoking, suspending or curtailing a licence. A licence holder has
a right of appeal to the T r a n s p o r t Tribunal in respect of any revocation, sus­
pesnion or curtailment of his licence.
Prohibition
of Unfit Goods
Vehicles
2.45 Licensing Authorities have a general responsibility for supervising the
roadworthiness of goods vehicles. For this purpose they have the assistance of
Vehicle Examiners appointed by the Minister. Vehicle Examiners have power to
inspect goods vehicles whether or not authorised under a c a r r i e r s licence. If the
vehicle appears unfit for service or likely to become so, the Examiner may
prohibit its use for carriage of goods either immediately or with delayed effect.
This only affects the use of the vehicle when loaded. The Examiner has no power
to prevent an unfit vehicle being driven away unloaded. He may remove the
prohibition when satisfied that the necessary repairs have been made. A person
aggrieved by the refusal of the Examiner to remove a prohibition can apply to a
Licensing Authority to have the vehicle examined by an Area Mechanical
Engineer, who is a professionally qualified official senior to the Vehicle Examiner.
If still dissatisfied an aggrieved operator can appeal to the Minister.
Drivers' Hours and
Records
2.46 By Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 (and formerly by Section 19
of the Road Traffic Act 1930) the periods of duty of a driver of a commercial
vehicle are limited for safety reasons. As an aid to enforcement of these p r o ­
visions, drivers of vehicles authorised under carriers' licences must keep records
of their hours of work and of journeys made. Licence holders are required t o
ensure that such records are made out, and to hold them for a period for inspec­
tion by the staffs of the Licensing Authorities.
2.47 There are exemptions from this requirement. Drivers of C licensed
vehicles weighing no more than 16 cwt. unladen are not required to keep records
if the vehicle is used only on journeys within 5 miles of the place where it is
normally kept. There are also exemptions for vehicles used in agriculture on
journeys within 25 miles of base and for vehicles used by travelling showmen on
journeys of less than 50 miles.
Case Law
2.48 The preceding paragraphs describe the present licensing system as it is
laid down in the Road Traffic Act. In statutory form the system differs very
little from that originally introduced in 1933. But in the course of 30 years the
licensing system has evolved much case law and custom. The development of
the system has been much influenced by the decisions of the Transport T r i b u n a l
a n d its predecessor bodies over the years. These bodies have adopted a legalistic
approach and have tended to decide appeals by fairly close reference to prece­
dents. As a result Licensing Authorities have also had to consult precedents
before giving decisions. This has led to the growth of a system of case
law of no little complexity. It is interesting t o note that the Salter R e p o r t
contemplated the issue of instructions to the Licensing Authorities by the
Minister* and considered it of great importance t h a t even the appeals procedure
should be so designed to make the employment of Counsel unnecessary a n d
unsuitable!. The hope was expressed by the Conference that as in the case of
the Workmen's Compensation Act the system would be run without the inter­
vention of lawyers.
2.49 Because of the developed intricacies of the system, it is not always easy
for hauliers to be sure where they stand. T o guard against complications which
can be fatal to an application, it is usually necessary to take legal advice, and it
is normal for applicants and objectors to be legally represented at public in­
quirics. (But legal representation is not compulsory and Licensing Authorities go
o u t of their way to see that an applicant putting his own case has a fair hearing).
Every aspect of the application may attract the complexities of case law—the
type of licence which should be obtained for particular types of work, the kind
of evidence which applicants a n d objectors are expected to bring in particular
kinds of case, the statement of intention which m u s t be made in an application
for an A licence, and the reasons for which a licence may be suspended or
revoked—are all subject to argument by precedent and reference to case law.
Normal
User
2.50 T h e most important development in the licensing system since it was set
u p concerns the " normal user " of the A licence. This licence was apparently
conceived originally as giving freedom to carry any kind of goods anywhere in the
country. But to consider the need for new licences in relation to existing facilities,
Licensing Authorities had to ask what work an applicant for a licence intended
t o do. T h e 1953 T r a n s p o r t Act tightened this (perhaps inevitable) control by
empowering Licensing Authorities to revoke or suspend a licence if a statement
of intention made in the application was not fulfilled. T h e logic was inexorable,
b u t the result has been that a haulier may lose his licence if he does a substantial
a m o u n t of work outside the terms of his original declaration of normal user.
Tims in effect the A licence " normal user ", declared on the application for the
licence, becomes a condition which curtails the freedom of the holder. A n A
licence haulier with a narrow " normal user " may even be more confined in his
operations than the holder of a B licence with wide conditions.
2.51 T h e tendency for A and B licences to grow more alike has been enhanced
by the practice of granting B licences to hauliers who have n o other business.
T h e B licence seems originally to have been intended to meet the needs of the
trader w h o wished both to carry his own goods and also to operate as a haulier
in a limited way as an adjunct to his main trade. But the difficulty of obtaining
a new A licence in face of the objections of the established operators has en­
couraged hauliers and would-be hauliers to apply for a B licence, since objections
can often be avoided o r reduced by agreement to accept strict conditions.
* R c p o r t o f the Saltcr Conference, p a r a g r a p h 107. f l b i d . p a r a g r a p h 11 I F . Road-Rail
Negotiating
Committees
2.52 There is in each Traffic Area an unofficial body known as the Road-Rail
Negotiating Committee. This consists of representatives of British Railways and
certain organised road hauliers. Committees invite applicants for A and B
licences to meet them to discuss the scope of their applications and what can be
done to secure the withdrawal of objections lodged against them. Applicants
need not appear before the Committees, which have no official status. Licensing
Authorities are not bound to accept any settlement negotiated in this way. T h e
Committees often succeed, however, in getting the applicants to clarify or
reduce the scope of their applications and hence in persuading the objectors to
withdraw their objections.
Entry to the Road Haulage
Industry
2.53 In practice the volume of objection by existing licensed operators and by
the railways seems to have m a d e it very difficult for a new entrant to road
haulage to obtain an A licence. B licences are somewhat easier to obtain. We
have heard that most new-comers gain entry to the industry by what are
described as " backdoor " methods. They obtain (as of right) a Contract A
licence to carry goods exclusively for one customer. After a period they apply
for a full A licence, relying on the work they have been doing for their one
customer as their proof of need. Since they have no trading or manufacturing
business of their own for which they might need to use the vehicle, they claim
that they should have an A rather than a B licence.
2.54 A n o t h e r way into the industry is through the right of manufacturers or
traders to a " C-hiring " margin. This entitles the manufacturer or trader to use
hired vehicles as well as his own vehicles up to a number specified in his licence.
This right is useful to manufacturers and traders who need to employ a fluetu­
ating number of vehicles or who for any other reason prefer not to own vehicles
over which they need from time to time to have full control. But we have been
told that the hirer can operate what is in effect a haulage business by hiring out
his vehicles to manufacturers and traders, sometimes the same vehicle to several
different users on a day to day basis. The manufacturer or trader is entitled only
to hire vehicles as chattels and must employ his own drivers; but this rcquirc­
ment is sometimes evaded by taking the hirer's drivers as a matter of form on
to the m a n u f a c t u r e r s or trader's pay-roll. Eventually the work done through
legal C-hiring arrangements may be used as evidence of customer needs in an A
or B licence application.
Summary
and
Conclusions
2.55 T o sum up, the present system of licensing was introduced in 1933 to
implement fairly closely the recommendations of the Salter Conference to deal
with what the Conference regarded as the evils of excessive competition. Despite
considerable changes in basic circumstances, the system has endured for over 30
years without major amendment, though it has developed an intricate system of
case law which has made it much more complex and legal in flavour than was
perhaps intended by its originators. The distinctions between the classes of
licence have become considerably blurred. T h e system is now an elaborate
process of regulation of what a lorry operator may carry.
199
CHAPTER 3 R o a d T r a n s p o r t o f G o o d s in G r e a t Britain
Today
The Vehicle Fleet—Sizes,
Numbers
and
Licences
1
3.1 According to Ministry of Transport statistics ", there are now 1,476,000
goods vehicles (out of a total road m o t o r vehicle population of 11,400,000)
operating under carriers' licences in this country. 929,000 of these weigh under
2 tons unladen, and are mainly what are generally recognised as light vans.
225,000 weigh between 2 and 3 tons unladen, and form an intermediate class.
Over 3 tons unladen, the lorry is what the layman would call " heavy " ; there
are 322,000 of them. In the " heavy " class, the number in each size range goes
down sharply as the size increases. T h u s there are:
244,000 of 3-5 tons unladen weight 61,000 of 5-8 tons unladen weight 17,000 of over 8 tons unladen weight. 3.2 T h e 322,000 heavy lorries, usually carrying larger loads for longer dis­
tanccs, carry out over 8 0 % of the work done (measured in ton/mileage), j On
the same basis, 929,000 vehicles in the light class do less than 6 % of the total
work. In other words, the smaller vehicles, though numerous and useful at their
own tasks, contribute very little to the main flows of goods about the country.
For longer journeys (i.e. over say 100 miles) the contribution of the light vehicle
is negligible (roughly 1 % of the ton/mileage moving this distance).
3.3 T h e 929,000 light vehicles are almost wholly (98%) under C licence,
carrying goods in connection with the main trading, manufacturing or service
businesses of their owners. Of the 225,000 in the intermediate class, roughly
7 5 % are also C licensed. Of the heavy class, about 6 0 % are under C licence.
T h e remainder (57,000 intermediate and 125,000 heavy) are engaged, under A,
Contract A and B licence, primarily on haulage work for others.
The Operators'
Fleets—Sizes
and
Licences
3.4 In the hire or reward field the size of a n o p e r a t o r s fleet varies widely, with
a general tendency to small units including a significant n u m b e r of single­
vehicle units.
3.5 T h e nationally-owned fleets of the Transport Holding C o m p a n y (i.e. the
British Road Services group) with some 12,000 licensed haulage vehicles, and
British Railways with the same number of licensed haulage vehicles, are ex­
ceptional in size.J British Road Services Limited, the general haulage part of the
*Sce A p p e n d i x B (ii), T a b l e 6. t S e e A p p e n d i x B (i), Tables 25 a n d 26. J B . R . S . o w n a b o u t 16,000 vehicles, a n d British Railways a b o u t 14,000. But not all are currently licensed.
Transport Holding C o m p a n y ' s fleet, is far and away the largest trunk haulage
unit in the country. The work of the British Railways fleet isjprimarily collection
and delivery of goods whose trunk haul is by rail, and the vehicles used are often
specialised for the purpose. T h e remainder of the haulage industry is generally
organised in company fleets of at most a b o u t 150 vehicles. In recent years,
however, there has been a development of larger groups, through the acquisition
by holding companies of other haulage companies. The acquired companies are
then left a high degree of independence in the running of their day to day affairs.
N o great pressure is apparently put on them to seek to integrate the running of
their lorries with those of other companies in the group. T h e grouping process
has so far produced only a handful of really large units, with a total vehicle
strength for each group of from 500 to 3.000 vehicles.
3.6 T h e distribution of haulage lorries by fleet size is as follows:*
3 4 % of the total vehicle strength is run by operators of 5 vehicles or less;
4 4 % is in fleets of 6-50 vehicles;
22 % is in fleets of over 50 vehicles (made up of 5k % British Road Services,
51 % British Railways and 11 % others).
3.7 The size of fleet of any one C operator varies widely from one vehicle to
several thousand. We understand that an analysis by your Department of heavy
C licensed vehicles comparable with that for hauliers will be available later this
year. All that can at present be said with confidence is that a large number of the
light vans running under C licences are those of the small retailers each with
only one or two vehicles in use. At the other end of the scale, there is also a
number of fleets in the very large class, most of them owned by major industrial
concerns known throughout the country.
The Organisation
of the Market for Haulage
Services
3.8 There is no deliberately organised and clearly defined road haulage
" m a r k e t " . But many hauliers in conjunction with their haulage business
operate to greater or lesser extent as clearing houses for traffic, sometimes sub­
contracting and sometimes only acting as brokers. Organisations functioning
solely as clearing houses exist up and down the country, but their number is
small in relation to the traffic and by and large they seem to work independently
of one another.
3.9 This absence of a consciously integrated and extensive network of clearing
houses seems surprising in the light of the important effect a return load can
have on efficient and economic use of vehicles and therefore on profitability.
We think there are a number of reasons. T h e most important is that in a small
country like ours, the lorry's journey is usually s h o r t . ! T h e lorry may well take
less time to get back to base than is needed to seek out and take aboard a return
load. Where this is so, it may well be better for the operator to get his lorry back
to base to get on with the next outward j o b , than to have it return laden but later.
Secondly, the regular consignor of traffic usually prefers to know the carrier to
whom he is entrusting his goods, rather than to put these goods on the first
*See A p p e n d i x B (iii), Table 2.
t Y o u r D e p a r t m e n t s statistics show that over 9 0 % of j o u r n e y s by heavy lorries are under
100 miles a n d a b o u t 8 0 % of j o u r n e y s by heavy vehicles are u n d e r 50 miles. See A p p e n d i x
B (i), T a b l e s 21 and 22.
lorry " going that way ". (We heard much evidence of the damage which a
driver or carrier inexperienced in a particular commodity can do through
ignorance. There is also the fear of loss of valuable goods through robbery).
Thirdly, hauliers build u p their own ad hoc arrangements for tapping possible
sources of readily available return traffic.
3.10 But whatever the reason, we found no widespread sense of need for
specialised market intermediaries or market institutions.
Competition
in Road
Haulage
3.11 Within the framework of quantity control by licensing, the degree of
competition varies in the different parts of the road haulage industry. In some
parts e.g. tipper work, competition in rates is intense. In other parts of the in­
dustry competition is less. Sometimes this is so because the number of haulage
firms is limited by the special requirements of the particular traffic. The larger
operators may have advantages over smaller competitors because, as we heard
in evidence, a consignor handling large flows of traffic linds it uneconomical to
deal with a multitude of small hauliers. In such circumstances competition is
likely to be limited, regardless of whether or not there is quantity control by
licensing. However, in general competition in road haulage seems to be strong.
We understand that the Road Haulage Association, the principal organisation
of road hauliers, has at times been unable to secure the implementation of
recommended increases in freight charges even when there have been general
increases in operating costs. Nevertheless the support of organised and individual
hauliers for the licensing system suggests at least in part that this system p r o ­
vides some real protection of established hauliers from the full force of
competition.
Operations of Road Goods
Transport
3.12 It is perhaps astonishing to find that there was until recent years practi­
cally no information about the operation of road transport of goods. But latterly
much useful statistical work has been done in this field by your Department. T h e
resultant publications* provide a mine of detailed information covering many
aspects of the industry. This information has been of great help to us and we
have drawn heavily on it. It is already available in published form and for
convenience we reproduce extracts from it at Appendix B. So in the following
paragraphs wc do not need to present more than the most important features on
the present operations of road transport of goods.
3.13 T h e lorry is now the principal carrier of goods in this country. 80 % j of
the tonnage and 55 %J of the ton mileage is by road. The difference in these
*Ministry of T r a n s p o r t Statistical P a p e r N o . 2 - S u r v e y of R o a d G o o d s T r a n s p o r t 1962.
Final Results P a r t I.
Ministry of T r a n s p o r t Statistical P a p e r N o . 3 - H i g h w a y Statistics 1963.
Ministry of T r a n s p o r t Statistical Paper N o . A—Survey of R o a d G o o d s T r a n s p o r t 1962.
Final Results C o m m o d i t y Analysis.
Ministry of T r a n s p o r t Survey of R o a d G o o d s T r a n s p o r t 1962. G e o g r a p h i c a l Analysis
Provisional Results.
Ministry of T r a n s p o r t Public H a u l a g e O p e r a t o r s Analysis by Size of Fleet 1963.
t M i n i s t r y of T r a n s p o r t Statistical P a p e r N o . 2—Survey of R o a d G o o d s T r a n s p o r t 1962.
Final Results, P a r t I , T a b l e (v), P a g e 8.
JIbid, Page 7.
figures is explained by the greater average lengths of haul by rail or coastal
shipping. The average length of haul by r o a d is a b o u t 25 miles, by rail 70 miles
(for all traffic) and 135 miles (for general merchandise), and by coastal shipping
200 miles (for oil) and 270 miles (for coal)*. T h e figures of the road transport
share in the total give a misleading impression, unless it is remembered that a
very iarge number of short or very short hauls are carried out by road which is
the only possible means of transport for them. A m o r e useful comparison is
perhaps the shares of long distance transport—i.e. over 100 miles. The estimate
here is that road transport accounts for a b o u t 4 0 % , rail 3 0 % and coastal ship­
ping 30 % of total ton mileages.
3.14 Of the work (ton miles) by heavy lorries, somewhat under half (43%) is
in C licensed vehicles. This minority share of the work, by what is the major
part of the heavy fleet (paragraph 3.3 above) is explained by the shorter average
haul by C licensed vehicles. The following table shows the p o s i t i o n : !
Journeys
Length
(miles)
Under 50
50-99
100 and over
Proportion of Workit on miles)
Heavy
C '
45%
25%
30%
Heavy
A & B
25%
20%
55%
3.15 C licence work also differs from that of A and B vehicles because of the
high proportion of journeys where m a n y part loads are picked up or set down
en route. Journeys by hauliers are primarily of the type where the same goods
are carried from end to end of the journey.
3.16 A large proportion of the C licence fleet is in the distributive trades, the
building and construction industry and the food, drink and tobacco industries.
These trades engage nearly 60 % J of the heavy C licensed vehicles.
The Trend from Rail to Road
3.17 M u c h has been said in recent years a b o u t the " swing " to road trans­
port. But the use of this term may be misleading. There is no d o u b t that the
share of road transport has increased greatly relative to that of rail.5 But the
growth of trades or industries for which road transport has proved to be specially
suitable has been fairly high, compared with that of the industries for which rail
has special advantages. This growth may account for more of the a p p a r e n t total
" swing " than any actual transfer of custom from rail to road. F o r example, in
the main rail-using industries, mining output \\ fell by 10% between 1952 and
1962 and iron and steel output rose by only 1 3 % (and was accompanied by
developments which reduced that industry's d e m a n d s for transport in relation
*Distances for coastal shipping a r e from origin to destination by inland r o u t e , not by sea.
T h e figures are t h u s c o m p a r a b l e with those for road a n d rail.
t S e e Appendix B (i), Tables 25 a n d 26
£Ministry of T r a n s p o r t Statistical Paper N o . 2—Survey of R o a d G o o d s T r a n s p o r t , 1962,
Final Results. Part T, Table 12, Page 34.
$See Appendix B (i), Tables (i) a n d (vi).
I!See A p p e n d i x B (i), T a b l e (vii).
to production). In the same period the output of predominantly road-using
industries like the manufacture of food, drink and tobacco, and the construction
industries, increased by 3 0 - 4 0 % .
3.18 We d o not know to what extent the same situation—differences in rates
of growth or decline of predominantly rail-using as against predominantly
road-using industries—applies more widely to the transport of general merchan­
dise. When coal and mineral traffics and iron and steel products are excluded,
the remaining rail general merchandise traffic has in fact declined by some 2 5 %
over the last ten years.
3.19 All in all, it seems fairly clear that a substantial part of the fall in the
total volume of rail traffic arises from decline in the total transport needs of
traditional rail users. The growth in road transport equally owes much to the
development of industries for whose work road is specially suitable. In the
overall change which has taken place there must have been an element of transfer
of traffic from rail to road, but this element is probably a minor part of the
whole.
3.20 A contributing factor may be that transfers of traffic once m a d e tend to
be permanent. If factories have been sited or trading estates laid out on the
basis of road service, goods traffic will tend to continue to go by road. It may be
difficult or even impossible in these cases to send any goods economically by
rail, however much the general standard of rail service is improved.
Load
Factors
3.21 There are no statistics available from which load factors (i.e. the a m o u n t
carried in relation to the transport capacity provided) for road goods transport
can be precisely calculated. The nearest approach to a calculation is by way of
your D e p a r t m e n t s " Survey of Road G o o d s Transport 1962 ", which gives
figures of the proportion of empty mileage run by various categories of vehicle
on different types of journey. On intermediate journeys, on which goods were
picked u p and set down at several points, 17% of the total mileage was run
empty. On end-to-end journeys 3 6 % of the miles were run empty.* The average
mileage run empty on end-to-end journeys was 27 % for A licensed vehicles, 41 %
for Contract A vehicles, 4 5 % for B licensed vehicles and 3 8 % for C licensed
vehicles. The lower figure of A as compared to Contract A and C vehicles was
confined to heavy vehicles.
3.22 T h e survey showed that substantial empty running occurs with all but
the heavier A licensed vehicles, and that the degree of empty running tends to be
greater for those vehicles whose freedom is more restricted by the terms of their
licence. The degree of empty running moreover is greater than the figures at
first show. F o r instance, some end-to-end journeys defined as loaded are made
with only small part loads. If the vehicle is large there may be just as much unused
capacity on such journeys as when a somewhat smaller vehicle runs empty. This
problem of measurement was recognised by your Department in its 1952 and
1958 surveys, and figures of the number of journeys more than and less than
half loaded were then included. We understand however that these figures were
regarded as very unreliable and that they were discontinued because of the
*Scc A p p e n d i x B (i), T a b l e (x).
difficulty of obtaining a n adequate measure of the degree to which a vehicle is
loaded in any particular case. T h e results tended to show that a fairly large
proportion of " loaded " mileage was in fact with the vehicle more than half
empty in the case of C licensed a n d the smaller A and B licensed vehicles, while
the larger A and B vehicles generally operated either fairly fully loaded or empty.
3.23 The difficulties of measurement in this field are clear. With light bulky
loads a vehicle may be full before it is carrying anything like the weight it could.
With dense loads like steel sheet the m a x i m u m weight may be reached while
much capacity by volume remains. Some goods can be stacked, others cannot.
Some can be mixed with other goods, others d e m a n d sole use of the vehicle.
3.24 We do not however regard load factor as a useful and reliable measure
of efficiency. A high load factor might be obtained at the expense of the efficient
use of vehicles on their main function, or of a poorer service to the customer and
disproportionately high costs in other operations. (It was argued before us that
even if he were free to carry return loads for others, it would normally suit
a C licence operator better to get his vehicle back to base quickly, ready for a
new journey, than to have it search a r o u n d for return loads.) It is hard to see
how the circular delivery trip o r the highly specialist vehicle characteristic of
much C licence work can ever show a high load factor—the nature of the j o b
just does not allow it.
Customer
Satisfaction
3.25 In an enquiry into the system of control applying to an industry, it is
relevant to consider whether that industry seems to be failing to satisfy its
customers.
3.26 In all the evidence put to us, there was no general criticism by users of
the services provided by road hauliers. In weighing this evidence, we must of
course have regard to the relative ease with which those dissatisfied with the
service from hauliers might have gone over to their own C licence vehicles. There
is also the general inarticulateness of consumers to be taken into account.
Nevertheless, it is appropriate t o record that we have had no evidence from
users of dissatisfaction with the road haulage industry, and that no specific
complaints were made to us. (What complaint there was, and fairiy widely and
persistently at that, was from those who felt that the physical presence of the
r o a d goods vehicle was unwelcome, not that it gave a bad service either to its
user or to those who benefited directly or indirectly from the work it had done.)
Bankruptcy
in the Road Haulage
Industry
3.27 A feature of the road haulage industry to which several references were
m a d e in evidence to us was the incidence of bankruptcy. O u r attention was
invited to the figures published by the Board of Trade, showing that in 1962 the
number of road haulage contractors who failed in bankruptcy was exceeded only
by the figure for builders. In the previous year the figures were again high,
exceeded only by builders once more and the hardware and electrical retailers.
We were invited to take account of these facts as showing the tendency to in­
stability in road haulage, even licensed as it was. We were also invited to draw
the further inference that licensing controls should be tightened, to reduce the
number of bankruptcies and the instability explicitly or implicitly attributed to
it.
3.28 While not in any way under-estimating the effects of bankruptcy, we
would not necessarily accept the premise that it was the duty of government so
to arrange matters that bankruptcy in any particular occupation became ex­
tremely unlikely. Few would think it wrong that men of enterprise should be
entitled to set out on a business venture which has financial risks. If there is risk,
there will always from time to time be failure. Whether this is socially serious
or not must be judged against the scale of each individual failure and by the
number of failures. In any one industry, the number of failures which
might be significant must depend in turn on how many there are engaged
in that industry. If the number of concerns in the industry is large,
the total number of bankruptcies might be quite high without necessarily giving
cause for general alarm. This would be particularly true if the concerns were
mainly small.
3.29 We thought it might be useful to sec whether further research into the
published figures of bankruptcy in road haulage would give any guide to the
kind of firm which appeared to be most liable to fail. With the co-operation of
the Board of T r a d e and of the Licensing Authorities, to w h o m we are much
indebted, wc sought to trace the carriers' licensing history of the road haulage
contractors who according to the Board of Trade's returns had failed in the last
three years. Our picture was bound to be incomplete, since it included neither
receiverships nor liquidations of companies (which were left out because of the
difficulty of distinguishing voluntary from compulsory liquidation). Moreover,
bankruptcy could not always be ascribed to business failure—debts in private
life might be to blame. (These cases would however be shown according to the
occupation of the bankrupt, irrelevant though this might be). Nevertheless it
seemed that wc might be able to throw more light on the subject than previous
information had allowed.
3.30 The first and most important fact which emerged from our investigations
was that more than half of those classified as road haulage contractors in the
Board of Trade's figures were not holders of carriers' licences. Many were
completely u n k n o w n to the Licensing Authorities; others no longer held licences
at the time of bankruptcy, or holding only C licences, almost certainly failed in
their main line of business, and not because of transport factors. Counting only
licensed hauliers, there were roughly 100 failures in each of years 1961-63 out
of a total of roughly 46,000 A and B licensed operators in this industry. Bearing
in mind that number of " private life " bankruptcies inevitably included in the
figures, and the total number of hauliers in the country we do not find in these
figures any great cause for concern. Indeed, a significantly lower rate might even
be taken as evidence of the degree of protection afforded by the licensing system.
3.31 T h e n u m b e r of failures by licensed hauliers would have placed them
seventh, eighth and tenth respectively in the order of occupations with the most
failures, as against third, second and fourth according to the published classi­
fication.
3.32 The 293 A and B licence holders who went bankrupt in the years 1961-63
operated a total of 900 vehicles or, on an annual basis, about 0 . 2 % of the total
haulage fleet operating in each year. 6 4 % of the bankrupts had only one or two
vehicles and only 4 % had fleets of more than 10 vehicles. So failure by a larger
haulage firm is clearly rare.
3.33 Analysis of the 1961-63 failures by category of c a r r i e r s licence showed
that 5 6 % of the vehicles were specified in A contract licences, 31 % in B licences,
and 1 3 % in A licences. The higher proportion of b a n k r u p t s operating under
Contract A licences and B might seem to support two possible explanations. As
the rate of failure goes up when the licence is in one of the categories which is
easier to obtain, it might therefore seem that those with less real prospect of
survival make their way in by the easiest road. On the other hand, as the failure
rate is highest when the licence conditions are most restrictive, it might seem
that the severity of restriction is a contributory cause of the higher failure rate.
We cannot draw a firm conclusion from the evidence here.
3.34 Another fact which emerged from the Committce's investigations was
that most b a n k r u p t licensed hauliers had not been in that business long. Only
3 2 % of those failing in 1961-63 had been operating for more than live years and
only 1 % had held licences before the war.
3.35 7 0 % of the A licensed vehicles of the bankrupts were authorised to
operate over long distances, including 3 8 % with a " g e n e r a l g o o d s " normal
user. Only 11 % had short distance "general g o o d s " normal user, so it docs not
appear that b a n k r u p t s holding A licences suffered from particularly restrictive
normal user.
3.36 Failures under Contract A and B licences show a clearer pattern. A large
number of bankrupts worked in the tipper field. 5 5 % of the b a n k r u p t Contract
A licence holders' vehicles were tippers (which form 3 5 % of the national licet of
Contract A vehicles), and. 7 0 % of the B licensed vehicles involved in bankruptcy
were tippers (which form 4 0 % of the national fleet of B vehicles). As might be
expected these tippers were engaged largely in working for the construction
industry and in the carriage of solid fuel. These arc fields where the demand
varies quite widely from time to time, and this may well have had a bearing.
3.37 Our investigations of bankruptcies suggested that the vulnerability of
the road haulier to bankruptcy was not as great as many people thought, that
those who failed were nearly always in a small way of business and not long
established, and that the nature and scale of bankruptcy in the industry were not
such that any special measures by G o v e r n m e n t were called for on that account.
Summary
3.38
(i) Of nearly H million goods vehicles, only 322,000 arc in the heavy
classes which do 8 0 % of the work. Nearly all the light vehicles arc
under C licence, as are 6 0 % of the heavy ones. Fleet sizes vary
widely, but most are of small or medium size (i.c. of under 50
vehicles).
(ii) There is no organised market for haulage services, but no evidence
that this is a serious defect.
(iii) I n m o s t sections of the industry competition is strong a n d some­
times intense.
(iv) R o a d transport carries 8 0 % of the tonnage of goods moved in the
country and is responsible for 55 % of the ton mileage. Of the ton
mileage done by heavy lorries, 43 % is in C vehicles.
(v) T h e growth of the share of r o a d transport in total inland transport
is probably due mainly to the faster growth in recent years of those
industries for which road transport is particularly suitable, than
t h a t of those industries for which rail is particularly suitable.
(vi) L o a d factors are hard to measure, may be expected to vary widely,
a n d d o not provide a useful index of efficiency.
(vii) There were no complaints to us by users a b o u t the services p r o ­
vided by road hauliers.
(viii) T h e incidence of bankruptcy in road haulage is not high in relation
to the number of firms in the industry.
CHAPTER 4
R e g u l a t i o n o f R o a d H a u l a g e in Other Countries 4.1 I n the preceding two chapters we have looked at the road haulage
industry in Great Britain, and the history and operation of the licensing system
used to control it. Before going further into the working and effects of licensing
in this country we think it useful to examine the nature and aims of regulation
of road haulage in other countries.
4.2 In nearly all advanced industrial countries road haulage is subject to a
degree of regulation which is not generally found in other industries. However,
both the extent of such regulation and the means by which it is applied vary
from country to country and in recent years a number of governments have
examined afresh the policies and principles behind such regulation.
4.3 We have relied in the main on information currently available from
your Department and from other sources. As might be expected, there was
much more material available to us about transport regulation in European
countries than elsewhere. But as we did not formally take evidence on practice
abroad, we d o not purport to present more than a broad survey of some different
methods of regulation of road transport of goods. We did make specific
inquiries to supplement the available information on some points but we did
not attempt to get much detailed evidence on foreign practice since we thought
that the wide differences in conditions would make comparison between one
country and another of limited value.
THE COMMON
MARKET
4.4 We look first at the development of the c o m m o n transport policy in
the European Economic Community. Apart from the obvious significance of
the Six as a group of some of the most important European countries, the
C o m m o n Market includes our nearest neighbours, and it is between them and
this country that most of our international road transport of goods flows.
The Treaty of R o m e which set up the European Economic Community does
not lay down any specific plan or policy for transport. It merely states that the
member countries shall adopt a c o m m o n transport policy and forbids dis­
crimination in transport charges between different countries or different
industries. The absence of specific provisions for transport in the Treaty of Rome
was mainly the result of the considerable differences of outlook among the six
members of the community. These differences have so far held up any substantial
measure of agreement on a c o m m o n transport policy.
National Transport
Policies
4.5 In many ways European experience of the development of goods trans­
port has been similar to that of this country. In all cases railway systems were
built in the 19th century when they were subject to stringent public regulation
in order to control exploitation of their monopoly position. In every case the
railways have been subject to very severe competition from road transport
since the 1930's and their share of freight transport has been declining. As in
Britain, the State has had a substantial financial interest in the railway system.
But the maintenance of obligations on the railways to provide services at
controlled charges, often below the actual cost of carrying goods, has been
regarded as an important safeguard for many industries which are dependent
o n the railways. T h e use of the railways to pursue social aims such as the
encouragement of under-developed regions like Southern Italy by the provision
of m a n y passenger services at sub-standard fares is a prominent feature of
E u r o p e a n railway systems. Perhaps the most significant difference between
the British situation and that a m o n g the Six is that several of these countries,
notably the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, have flourishing inland water­
way networks which carry a very substantial part of inland freight traffic. In
G e r m a n y and Belgium the three forms of transport—road, rail and inland
waterways—are of approximately equal importance, while inland waterways
are the major freight carrier in the Netherlands. The problems of inland trans­
port policy a m o n g the Six are correspondingly more difficult. The closest
parallel to British conditions is found in Italy, where inland waterways play an
insignificant role and road transport carries a very much higher proportion of
inland freight traffic than d o the railways. In France on the other h a n d the
railways are still the predominant freight carriers—partly because of extremely
stringent control of long distance road transport.
4.6 There are no direct controls over own account transport in any of the Six
though in G e r m a n y a special tax is levied on it. But some control over entry
into the professional road haulage industry is practised in all of them. T h e
extent to which the quantity of road haulage is seriously restricted varies very
greatly. In France and G e r m a n y , central government decides the number of
vehicles that provincial authorities may licence for long distance haulage. T h e
" q u o t a s " have been increased very little since before the war. Short distance
road transport is also subject in some cases to quota restriction but the q u o t a s
are much more liberal. At the same time the French and G e r m a n Governments
exercise close control over the charges made for road haulage in the same
way as railway rates are controlled. Indeed, in G e r m a n y the rate schedule for
long distance road transport was until recently identical to the railway rate
schedule. In France an exceedingly complicated form of rate control including
provision for variation of rates within a " fork "* of 3 0 % was established in
1961.
4.7 In Italy and the Netherlands, although entry into the road haulage
industry is subject to licensing, the system seems to be administered in a liberal
fashion and not significantly to impede the growth of road transport. In the
Netherlands, quite strict professional qualifications are demanded from appli­
cants for licences who m u s t have passed an examination on their knowledge of
r o a d transport law and practice. In the Netherlands too the railways have a
m u c h greater degree of commercial freedom than is usual in Europe and their
freedom of charging is in practice only restricted by control of maximum rates.
* " F o r k e d " tariffs stipulate m a x i m u m a n d m i n i m u m rates, the o p e r a t o r having freedom to
c h a r g e as h e thinks fit within these limits.
They have also been able to close d o w n a substantial part of the system and
are at present the only European railway system which is making a profit. Wc
understand that D u t c h policy is to leave the development of transport as far as
possible to the operation of market forces. This is sharply opposed to the
concept of a controlled transport m a r k e t in which the State plays the role of
co-ordinator, a concept which is principally expounded in France. Dutch policy
is m u c h influenced by the fact that road and waterway transport provide an
important invisible export. It is therefore particularly important for the Nether­
lands that international transport should be as free as possible.
4.8 T h e r e have been some signs recently of a move away from the more
restrictive forms of control. In G e r m a n y we understand that there is pressure
for greater liberalisation and the long distance road transport quota was
recently increased. T h e heavy taxation levied specifically on own account
transport has also been substantially reduced. The most striking example of
liberalisation has been in Belgium. Before 1960 professional haulage was
licensed on a strict " proof of need " basis under which licences were generally
refused if the railways wished to carry the goods in question. This was said to
have caused the rapid expansion of own account transport at the expense of
professional haulage. This development did not commend itself to the Belgian
Government, and a new system of carriers' licensing was introduced by which
licences were issued automatically to applicants with the requisite successful
experience in a more limited field.
The Action
Programme
4.9 In default of any c o m m o n g r o u n d between the Six, the initiative in
formulating proposals for the c o m m o n transport policy fell almost entirely to
the Commission whose " Action Programme for a C o m m o n Transport Policy "
was put before the Council of Ministers in May 1962. They took the view t h a t
the c o m m o n transport policy should not only contribute to the achievement
of the general c o m m o n market but should also aim at the organisation of the
transport system at the community level.
4.10 F o r road haulage the " Action Programme " proposes that restrictions
on entry into the industry should be relaxed and that bi-lateral quotas for
international transport should gradually be replaced by a community q u o t a
which would entitle licensed hauliers to engage both in international transport
and domestic transport in any member country. Quantitative control would
be retained but should be operated in a flexible manner so that the supply of
transport could be matched to the demand with a suitable margin for compcti­
tion. T h e Commission suggest that the authority responsible for licensing
should judge the need for increased capacity by reference to market indicators
such as the profit margins obtaining in road haulage, delays experienced by
users a n d the development of transport on own account.
4.11 At the same time the railways should be relieved of some of their more
onerous public service obligations. In particular they should be permitted to
a b a n d o n unprofitable lines or services or replace them with road transport
except where there were particularly pressing reasons of public policy why such
lines or services should be maintained. T h e railways should receive compensa­
tion for undertaking unprofitable services for reasons of public policy.
4.12 T h e most important proposal of the Action Programme for the regula­
tion of transport is that rates for all forms of transport should be subject to
control. Undertakings would be free to charge within the limits of a forked tariff
drawn u p by each form of transport a n d approved by the public authorities.
T h e tariff's upper limit would be fixed so as to prevent the exploitation of a
possible m o n o p o l y situation, the lower limit so as to cover the variable costs
of the operation with the addition of a certain percentage of fixed costs. T h e
Commission suggest that the width of the fork might vary between 1 0 % and
30 % b u t that there should be provision for exceptional rates outside the limits
of the forked tariff to take account of special circumstances such as a long term
contract which by ensuring greater regularity of traffic would enable costs to be
markedly lower than usual.
4.13 The proposals of the E.E.C. Commission for the organisation of trans­
port are obviously important. But the existence of widely differing transport
policies in the Member States meant that any proposals had to have a strong
element of compromise if they were to have any chance of being accepted.
T h a t the C o m m o n Market countries may adopt a transport policy involving
some control of rates, and that the Commission accept the need for some
quantitative limitation on entry into road transport, is not therefore necessarily
a strong argument for accepting the same kind of control of road transport
in this country.
U N I T E D STATES O F AMERICA
4.14 One of our number who was in the U.S.A. at the outset of our
took the opportunity to make a short but intensive study of the situation
In this he received much help from the American authorities and various
organisations, who provided much printed material as well. F o r this
valuable assistance we arc indeed grateful.
work
there.
trade
most
4.15 We understand that the form of control envisaged by the E.E.C.
Commission was influenced to some extent by practice in the U.S.A. The
Federal Government exercises control only over inter-State transport; trans­
port operations which are confined within the borders of a single State are
subject solely to the jurisdiction of that State, (which may however be larger
than the whole of Great Britain). The different geographical conditions in
America, particularly the much greater distances to be traversed, have an
appreciable affect on the pattern of transport. T h e railways are still the major
freight carrier, carrying in 1962 4 3 % by ton miles of inland goods transport;
road transport carried 2 4 % , inland waterways 16%, and pipe-lines 1 7 % . The
characteristic feature which distinguishes the United States from almost every
other country is that its railway system is not owned by the State but is in the
hands of a large number of private companies. Amalgamations of competing
railroads are subject to official scrutiny and control. The railway system as a
whole is still viable but m a n y individual companies have run into severe
difficulties as a result of competition from road transport.
The Inter-State
Commerce
Commission
4.16 Transport regulation in America developed in the 19th century in a
similar way to that in Europe. When the railways were the only significant
long-distance freight carriers, and despite competitive railway building, it
was necessary to protect users and the public generally from the monopolistic
activities of the railroad companies. As a result federal control over railway
rates developed with the setting u p of the Inter-State Commerce Commission
in 1887. T h e M o t o r Carrier Act of 1935 extended the control of the Commission
to road transport.
4.17 Inter-State carriers for hire or reward must be licensed by the InterState Commerce Commission. T o obtain a licence the applicant must prove
" public convenience and necessity ". Licences are issued in perpetuity. N o
restriction is placed on the number of lorries which may be operated by a licence
holder. Conditions may be and generally are attached to the licence laying
down the types of goods which may be carried and the routes or areas which
may be served. We understand that no new licence has in fact been issued since
the original issue on the introduction of the restrictions. In addition all carriers
are obliged to file their rate schedules with the Commission which has the right
to approve or reject them. Both carriers and users have the right to object to a
proposed rate but it is generally competing carriers who in fact do so on the
grounds that the rate does not cover the full costs of the operation. Individual
carriers are free to propose any rate schedule they please but in practice road
transport rates are determined by associations of carriers functioning as rate
bureaux.
The Agricultural
Sector
4.18 Certain classes of goods, particularly certain agricultural and fisheries
products, arc exempt from this system of control. This means that any carrier,
whether haulier or own account operator, licensed or unlicensed, is entitled to
carry these goods and may charge whatever rate he pleases. Road transport
operations in the agricultural sector arc therefore an example of road transport
completely free of any government regulation beyond safety requirements,
operating side by side with a highly regulated industry.
4.19 T h e agricultural exemption was included in the 1935 Motor Carrier
Act under the influence of pressure from the farming industry. Farmers have
consistently opposed any attempt to withdraw the exemption and it is clear
that they believe that as a result of freedom from regulation they obtain better
transport service at lower costs. The clearest evidence that rates arc lower
comes from the freeing from regulation of the transport of poultry and frozen
fruit and vegetables, by interpretation in the courts in the early 1950's. Wc
understand that road transport rates on poultry dropped by about one-third
and rates on frozen foods by about one-fifth from their previous regulated
levels. When regulation was restored to the carriage of frozen food, rates did
not immediately increase again but some additional charges seem to have been
levied. Studies by the Department of Agriculture have tended to confirm the
view that rates for exempt products are lower than common carrier rates for
similar services. T h e investigations of the D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture suggest
that rates tend to be relatively stable but that there is some variation because
of seasonal fluctuations in demand. Similarly exempt carrier rates, determined
by unrestricted competition, have not been accompanied by instability within
the industry or by uneconomic operations and high rates of bankruptcy. And
while there is strong competition for the carriage of agricultural products we
heard of no evidence that the standard of service had suffered as a result.
Present
United States
Policy
4.20 There does not appear to be any noticeable public demand for a drastic
change of policy in the United States. There is some evidence, however, of
dissatisfaction within Government circles with the present transport policy.
In 1960 the Department of Commerce published the " Rationale of Federal
Transportation P o l i c y " . This publication criticises the present methods of
control on the grounds that they encourage the use of the form of transport
which is in many cases not the most efficient for carriage of the particular goods.
C o n t r o l of rates has meant firstly, that the railroads are forced to charge
uneconomically low rates for some products, and unnecessarily high rates for
others, which they often lose to road competition; and secondly, that common
carrier traffic in general is being eroded by the competition of private and
exempt carriers. The " Rationale of Federal Transportation Policy " argues
t h a t ideally there should be no control over entry into the road haulage industry
b u t suggests that this aim is impracticable in the circumstances and that more
modest relaxations must be aimed at. The " Rationale " considers it important
that charges should be more closely related to long-run marginal costs.
JAPAN, CEYLON AND
AUSTRALIA
4.21 The general practice of almost all countries has been to impose some
measure of control over the road transport of goods. In these circumstances
the experience of such countries as did not apply close control could be signifi­
cant. We understood that in Japan and Ceylon, and in Australia (for inter­
state carriage) there was practically no control.
4.22 We did not find that experience in J a p a n or Ceylon was particularly
relevant to o u r problem, because the basic conditions were so different from
those in this country.
4.23 Conditions in Australia offered a closer though far from complete
analogy to ours and we looked at experience there with some interest. Australia
has been faced with the same transport problems as European countries. The
railways, which are in general owned by the individual States, have been losing
traffic to road competition and are making substantial losses. The position is
aggravated by the fact that the State Railways were built to different gauges
with the result that a great deal of long-distance transport involved tranship­
mcnt at State borders. Transport statistics available from Australia are very
limited but we understand that, for inter-State transport, coastal shipping
is the prime mover carrying nearly 5 0 % by ton-miles of goods transported;
road transport carries just over 3 0 % and rail just under 2 0 % . The State Govern­
ments have all applied transport policies aimed a t protecting their railways.
This has been d o n e either by licensing road haulage on a " proof of need "
basis or by levying a surcharge on road transport beyond a certain distance.
Until 1954 these restrictions applied to road transport between States as well
a s within State boundaries. But in that year a judgement of the Privy Council
freed inter-State transport from all forms of restriction. Since then in Australia
as in the United States there has been a sector of the road transport industry
operating free from specific controls, while the rest of the industry has continued
to be subject to strict supervision by the public authorities.
4.24 Information we received from the Australian state transport authorities
suggests that the initial result of the Privy Council judgement was very severe
competition in inter-State transport. This resulted sometimes in uneconomically
low rates and numerous bankruptcies. However more recently the industry
has settled down and rates while still low are stable. Inter-State road haulage
is considered to provide a satisfactory service. The high proportion of owner­
drivers might be expected to suggest an industry in which new entry and failures
occur frequently, but in fact their organisation into companies providing
them with administrative, maintenance and load booking facilities has helped
to stabilise the composition of the industry.
4.25 This picture of the inter-state road haulage industry was confirmed
by an article by Mr. Stewart Joy in the July, 1964 issue o f " Oxford Economic
Papers ". This article further suggests that the larger operators offering a more
comprehensive service are comparatively little affected by competition from the
small men. The intensive competition of the main inter-city routes is not found
in country districts where the limited a m o u n t of traffic on offer and the im­
portance of local knowledge means that a single haulier often has a virtual
monopoly of the local traffic.
4.26 Experience of unregulated traffic in Australia tends to confirm the
impression given by the agricultural sector in the United States. Conditions arc
of course not necessarily similar to those obtaining in this country. It does
appear however that in those cases in which experience has been obtained of
road transport operating under conditions of freedom the fears of those who
think that this situation would result in chaos, danger and a reduced standard
of service to the user have not been borne out, while they provide some evidence
of the effect of greater competition in the reduction of rates.
SWEDEN
4.27 We have seen that most countries apply much stricter control to road
transport than to other sectors of the economy. In paragraph 4.8 above we
described some of the indications that policies within the C o m m o n Market
were moving away from the more severe forms of restriction. A most interesting
change of policy has taken place in Sweden, where a committee of experts was
appointed in 1953 to review national transport policy. It published three
reports during the years 1961 and 1962. The recommendations of the com­
mittee have been implemented by legislation passed at the end of 1963.
Previously the railways were subject to the same kind of public service obliga­
tions as other European railways (comprising an obligation to run services,
not to discriminate between users and to observe maximum rates fixed by the
Government). Road transport for hire or reward was subject to a licensing
system whereby the applicant had to demonstrate the need for his proposed
service and existing carriers were able to object to his application. The object
of the system was to secure the best division of transport between competing
forms from the standpoint of the national economy.
4.28 T h e committee of experts found that the regulatory system did n o t
achieve these aims a n d t h a t the licensing of road transport h a d p r o m o t e d the
growth of monopolistic groups a n d given excessive encouragement to transport
on own account. The railways were operating at a substantial deficit. T h e
committee argued that the aims of transport policy might be achieved either
b y applying m o r e drastic and sophisticated methods of control or by giving the
various means of transport greater freedom to compete for the available traffic
o n commercial principles. T h e committee c a m e down in favour of greater
freedom. This was more in line with the position in other sectors of the economy.
Experience had shown h o w difficult it was for the G o v e r n m e n t to determine
by regulation the best division of traffic between competing forms of transport
T h e new legislation provides for the progressive relaxation of the licensing
system for road transport and the final abolition in 1968 of the needs test. At
the same time the railways will be relieved of their public service obligations
a n d where, for reasons of national policy, they are required to maintain un­
economic services, they will be reimbursed by the Government.
Conclusions
on Overseas Regulation
of Road Transport of Goods
4.29 In our investigations we have had to take account of the virtual
unanimity of other industrial countries in applying restrictive controls to road
transport. It is probably significant that nearly all these controls were introduced
in the 1930's under the influence of the slump a n d were probably also influenced
by each other. We note, however, that more recently the movement has been
away from the more highly restrictive forms of control. The only case we know
of where a Government is proposing to tighten u p its control of road transport
is in Portugal where stronger controls over own-account traffic are proposed.
4.30 We were impressed in our survey of transport policies and practices
a b r o a d by the evidence that the absence of restrictions on capacity, routes and
pricing did not in fact seem to lead to the fearful conditions foreseen by many
who put views to us. The experience in America and Australia of the unregulated
sectors of road transport here seemed to us to be of some significance, as did
the views so painstakingly formed by the Swedish enquiry.
4.31 T h e other major impression left on us by our survey of what is currently
done a b r o a d is that there are many different circumstances affecting transport
policy in different countries. This may help to explain the diversity of systems
of control in force.
Method of Approach
5.1 We come now to the main part of our task—the evaluation of the present
system of licensing. It would have been attractive to set out our views here on a
progressive basis—the role of licensing as seen by the Salter Conference; the
translation of their ideas into statutory form; the performance of the system in
achieving the purposes originally set for it; the adaptation of the system to
changing needs and circumstances; the ways in which it now might be adapted;
a n d the other means there might be for attaining policy objectives.
5.2 W e found however that exposition on these lines cut across another and we
think more important line of analysis—that is, the examination of licensing
against the various aims of a system of regulation of road transport. Licensing is
no end in itself, and its working cannot usefully be considered without first
deciding its purposes. Once purposes are defined, licensing can be examined in the
fight of them.
5.3 W e think the main possible objectives of government policy in regulating
road transport of goods a r e :
(i) the p r o m o t i o n of the safety of the public;
(ii) the promotion of efficiency in road transport operations;
(iii) the reduction of any harmful effects of road transport on amenity and
environment;
(iv) the promotion of increased use of available rail facilities for movement
of g o o d s ;
(v) the reduction or control of congestion on the roads.
5.4 The safety of the public: Once above the lightest class of goods vehicle, the
laden weight of lorries rises sharply. In this country the 174,500* in the 3-4 ton
unladen weight class can by law run, and sometimes d o so, at loaded weights over
10 tons; while the heaviest lorries in the ordinary range i.e. up to say 9 tons
unladen will weigh as much as 28 tons laden. The speeds at which these vehicles
operate continue to rise steadily. This increase in speed and the heavier weights of
goods vehicles are inevitable and indeed proper steps along the path of technical
progress. In a competitive world, we cannot afford to deny ourselves the con­
siderable benefits that come from them. But the combination of weight and speed
produces vehicles which are capable of doing a great deal of harm to life, limb
a n d property. G o v e r n m e n t has a high responsibility therefore for seeing that
heavy lorries are designed and maintained, driven and operated in such a way that
they are as safe on the road as they can reasonably be made, having in mind the
need for efficiency as well.
5.5 The efficiency of road transport: Road transport costs are a significant part
of the cost of producing and distributing almost all goods. In effect, we devote
nearly a tenth of our national effort to moving goods by road, rail and coastal
shipping*. This is a heavy call on our national resources. Anything that can be done
by government to increase the efficiency of the transport system, of which road
transport is by far the preponderant part in the movement of goods, will have
wide beneficial effects, not only in our export trade b u t also domestically.
5.6 Impact on amenity and environment: There can be few in this country who
do not make some personal use daily of a main road. It is on such roads that heavy
lorries largely run. There are now roughly half a million such lorries, each usually
on the road every working day. So the heavy lorry can hardly fail to make its
presence widely felt; and the effect of this presence can be a nuisance on a large
scale. Its total effect on our environment will depend to no small extent on how
far the lorry is noisy, smelly or an eyesore. Government control can bear on all
these aspects.
5.7 Use of the railways: The country's past capital expenditure in railways has
been heavy, both originally by private investors and more recently in massive
modernisation with funds provided nationally. This investment has produced a
system of transport with a capacity to carry a larger share than at present of the
country's goods. There would be some social advantage in terms of safety, amenity
and road congestion, if this spare capacity were used more fully. There would, on
the other hand, usually be an uneconomic penalty to pay for the use of a means of
transport which the individual user had decided was not the best to meet his needs.
5.8 Road Congestion: Rapid growth of the road vehicle population since 1945
has put a heavy strain on the road system. Large increases in the road programme
have met the situation on some routes and at many of the worst points; but the
tide of vehicles goes on rising apace, and forecasts are that it still has a long way to
gof. T h e rate and extent of its progress seem to be likely to be more than any
feasible road programme can wholly meet in the foreseeable future. The prospect
of widespread congestion, particularly in towns, presents a formidable problem
now and in the years ahead. It is a problem which it must be primarily for
government to tackle.
Co-ordination
5.9 It may at first seem strange that we do not include in our list of objectives
the co-ordination of transport. The Salter Conference had this much in mind, and
the matter has continued to figure prominently in discussion of transport policy
ever since. It could be argued therefore that it should be regarded as perhaps the
T h e value of the total o u t p u t of g o o d s p r o d u c e d by the e c o n o m y as a whole (including
imports) is shown in the N a t i o n a l Income a n d Expenditure Blue B o o k . F o r 1962 the figure for
agriculture, mining, manufacturing, construction industries, a n d the distributive trades
totalled a b o u t £24,000m. (at m a r k e t price). It is estimated that total e x p e n d i t u r e on t h e
t r a n s p o r t of g o o d s by r o a d , rail a n d coastal shipping in 1962 was a b o u t £2,100m. T h i s figure
includes all t h e inland t r a n s p o r t expenses of farmers, manufacturers, building, mining etc.
industries, and of wholesale a n d retail distributors. T h e expenditure on r o a d t r a n s p o r t alone
is estimated t o be £ 1,700m. T h e source of this figure is Ministry of T r a n s p o r t Statistical P a p e r
N o . 3 Highway Statistics 1963, H M S O (A detailed explanation of the basis for the estimate
is given in the final p a r a g r a p h of the introduction to that publication). T h e expenditure on rail
freight transport in 1962 was £290m. (This figure is the total rail receipts from freight t r a n s p o r t
shown in the B T C a n n u a l Report a n d Accounts). An estimate of the expenditure o n t r a n s p o r t
between the ports of G r e a t Britain by coastal shipping is n o t at present available, but since
coastal shipping performs about t w o thirds the a m o u n t of t r a n s p o r t performed by the railways
a n d is mainly engaged in the carriage of low priced bulk c o m m o d i t i e s , it is likely t h a t expendi­
turc on this form of t r a n s p o r t is in the region of £100-£150m. M o v e m e n t s of goods by o t h e r
forms of inland t r a n s p o r t — w a t e r w a y s , pipelines a n d airways, are relatively u n i m p o r t a n t a n d
the expenditure on these forms of t r a n s p o r t p r o b a b l y a m o u n t s only to £2 or £3m.
f T h c T r a n s p o r t N e e d s of G r e a t Britain in the Next Twenty Y e a r s (Hall R e p o r t ) .
main aim of government in regulating road transport of goods, and that it was u p
to us to consider the question.
5.10 However, co-ordination did not seem to us to be an aim separate and
distinct from those we have set out. Rather, the term " co-ordination " refers to a
policy embracing in varying degrees according to individual emphasis the several
policy aims we have considered. Although there is no general public consensus,
in practice co-ordination is often taken to mean largely a policy of influencing the
distribution of traffic towards the greater use of rail. This particular aim of policy
is one of the five set out in this Chapter, and examined in detail in Chapter 9.
5.11 We therefore have nothing to say explicitly about co-ordination as such.
We do not think we were called upon to do so. The balancing of the various
possible objectives in transport policy is a matter for government decision. Our
enquiries inevitably covered but part of the complex of circumstances and
measures bearing on transport. The appropriateness of our decision not to
consider co-ordination separately and explicitly is indeed confirmed by your
appointment of Lord Hinton to make a special study of co-ordination.
Public Attitudes to the Policy
Objectives
5.12 We believe that there will be general agreement with the proposition that
this country cannot afford to have any but a highly efficient transport system, and
that the efficiency of its transport system can have a profound effect on such
important matters as the performance of its industries in world markets and the
success of domestic policies of regional development. There will probably be little
quarrel with the proposition that the pursuit of efficiency in transport must
nevertheless have regard to the maintenance of high standards of safety to the
public and those engaged in transport, and to the effect of transport development
on amenity and environment. To the extent that the reduction of road congestion
enhances the efficiency of road transport and curbs its harmful effects on environ­
ment, this objective would also find general favour.
5.13 On the other hand, the remaining objective—the greater use of r a i l - i s
highly controversial. The social advantages of fewer lorries are clear to all. T h e
economic penalties of not using road transport may apply as universally, but often
in ways not immediately obvious to the public. An extremely difficult balance has
to be struck. In view of what wc say in paragraph 5.10 above, we have not found it
incumbent on us, or necessary for purposes of this report, to say where this balance
should lie, or even to express views on it. All we seek to d o , in Chapter 9 below, is
to consider licensing and other measures as ways of influencing the balance.
5.14 There may be other objectives which a government may well regard as
being relevant to its transport policy. We feel sure, however, that our discussion
of the licensing system in terms of the objectives we have set out above will bring
out its most important effects and implications. It will also no doubt show a
degree of inter-relation between these aims, in that the pursuit of any one may
contribute to or inhibit the achievement of another.
5.15 In the following five chapters we propose to take in turn each of the
objectives, and to examine the licensing system against it; to see in each case
whether it has contributed to achievement of the aim; whether some modification
of the system would enable it better to do s o ; and whether means other than
quantity control by licensing might be more effective instead.
Licensing a n d Safety
Introduction
6.1 T h r o u g h o u t the history of the present system of licensing, there has been
an undercurrent of belief that there was a close connection between licensing
and the safety of lorries. Since we think that a major a n d compelling aim of
government in regulating the transport of goods by road should be the p r o m o ­
tion of a high degree of public safety, including the safety of those engaged in
the industry, it seems right to us to start our examination of the present licensing
system by seeing how it has worked in the field of safety.
THE SAFETY OF
The Accident
LORRIES
Record
6.2 The road accident record of the heavy lorry is in some respects better
than that of most other road users, bearing in mind the mileages r u n by each
class of vehicle. A lorry of 1£ tons or over will on average r u n 340,000 miles
before being involved in an accident involving personal injury, while a car runs
only 265,000 miles.* But there is little reason for satisfaction o n this account.
The margin in favour of lorries is n o t large. Their size, weight a n d strength
mean that the accidents they d o have are of greater rather t h a n lesser severity.
Thus a lorry is involved in a fatal accident every 7 million miles on average as
compared to 12 million miles for a car.
6.3 Two factors suggest that it would be entirely reasonable to demand of
lorries a safety record not just somewhat better than that of cars, b u t a great
deal better. First, a high proportion of goods vehicles are driven full time by
professionals, while cars are inevitably driven quite largely by people with much
less experience. Second, the greater the potential danger of the tool, the greater
should be the safeguards and the care in its use.
6.4 In the light of these considerations, the present safety record of the lorry
is not what it should be. There are many good operators a n d drivers who do
all they humanly can. But there are also many indifferent or bad ones.
The Present Situation as Regards Lorry Maintenance,
of Drivers
Safe Loading and Hours
6.5 The difficulties of showing a direct correlation between road accidents
and any particular shortcoming of driver behaviour or vehicle equipment are
well known. N o material is available to us to show that the accidents in which
lorries have been involved can be attributed mainly to any particular cause
*Ministry of T r a n s p o r t a n d Scottish D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t , R o a d Accidents 1963.
T a b l e on P a g e xx ( H M S O ) .
But there is no call to prove the clanger to the public of a heavy and laden lorry,
running away on a lull for lack of brakes, or careering headfirst into oncoming
traffic as the over-tired driver nods off at the wheel. The obvious menace of
such situations is ample justification for any action to avert them wherever it
seems likely that they may arise.
6.6 As to the widespread possibility of such situations there is ample evidence.
A series of special checks was conducted by your Ministry from July to October
1964 outside major cities. At these checks 15,000 vehicles were examined,
nearly 1,500 immediate prohibition notices were issued and nearly 7,000
delayed notices. An immediate prohibition notice is issued if the defects in the
vehicle are such as involve immediate risk to public safety. It will be seen
therefore that 10 % of the lorries inspected were unfit to be on the road, and 45 %
were less seriously defective.
6.7 The figures reveal a shocking state of affairs, particularly since advance
warning was given of the towns where these checks would be conducted, so
that operators had ever)' opportunity to put their vehicles in order. It must of
course be borne in mind that some effort was made deliberately to pull in those
vehicles which appeared to be in bad condition. But the same kind of figures
have persistently been found in other roadside checks, and some of the Licensing
Authorities have mentioned in their annual reports that checks in their areas
conducted on a random basis showed no significant improvement in the figures.
Every member of the Committee witnessed such a check, and saw for himself
how i m p o r t a n t were the defects which were found.
6.8 T h e bad maintenance situation is made worse by what is happening in
other fields of lorry safety—overloading and drivers' excessive hours.
6.9 Under present law, maximum permitted weights are governed only by
the number of axles of the vehicles. For example, a two-axle vehicle may legally
weigh up to 16 tons laden. N o offence is committed below that weight, provided
the load is well stowed a n d secured; yet such a weight may be greatly beyond
the design capacity and probably beyond the safety limits of the vehicle. The
legal position can hardly fail to tempt operators to overload vehicles. Even the
well-intentioned have only a m a n u f a c t u r e r s recommendation as guidance as to
what their vehicles may safely carry; and as they know that this guidance is
probably over-cautious, they feel no compunction in disregarding it. We cannot
d o u b t that in practice many lorries carry more than is safe.
6.10 This view is confirmed by the number of prosecutions taken for breach
of m a x i m u m permissible weights.
6.11 T h e danger of driving while tired is clear. The added danger when the
vehicle is a heavy lorry is clearer still. The maximum permitted hours of driving
of a heavy lorry are therefore laid down by statute, explicitly for reasons of
public safety. T o show that these hours are being observed, lorry drivers have
to keep records; and officers of your Department enforce both requirements by
a process of checks and examinations, and where appropriate by prosecutions.
6.12 We were told, by witnesses well placed to know, that the statutory
limits on drivers hours were widely disregarded, and that the system of enforce­
ment through the examination of records was quite inadequate. Even as it is,
the enforcement work of a staff of roughly 140 results in some 12,500 successful
prosecutions a year (4,000 for excessive hours, and 8,500 for failure to keep the
required records. In the latter class of offence there is often good ground for
suspecting an offence of excessive hours also).
6.13 There is a n element of double counting in these figures because prose­
cutions may be brought against more than one person for a single offence.
But they d o indicate a serious situation. T h e evidence we received convinced
us that breaches of the statutory limits on hours of driving are far too c o m m o n .
6.14 We are forced to conclude that safety regulations are disregarded far
t o o frequently. T h e Salter Conference found in 1930 that the time had come
to tighten things up. So again d o we.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF LICENSING TO SAFETY
6.15 The main government measures to secure the safety of road goods
vehicles are direct. Statutes and regulations lay down safety rules and require­
ments, and these are enforced by the police and by specially appointed officials.*
T h e role of licensing in promoting safety is indirect. Opinions were expressed
to us that this role had been two-fold: to create an incentive to good behaviour
by providing a special " t r a d e " penalty, through the power of Licensing
Authorities to revoke, suspend or curtail a c a r r i e r s licence; and to afford at
least enough protection from extremes of competition to allow those within the
industry to maintain their vehicles properly and to allow their drivers adequate
rest.
Use of Present System
of Licensing as a Disciplinary
Measure
6.16 As regards the disciplinary function, we heard on all sides that fear of
loss of use of a vehicle, through action in respect of its c a r r i e r s licence, was the
sanction most likely to have a powerful effect on a c a r r i e r s behaviour. The
fines imposed by ordinary courts for most " carriers' " offences were usually
well worth paying for the financial gain from the offence (and from other like
offences which went undetected). Violation of the limits on drivers' hours often
gave additional use of expensive vehicles. T h e immediate and delayed prohibition
notices served on u n r o a d w o r t h y vehicles were n o great trouble to the owner.
Only the loss of a licence would really hurt.
6.17 The value of so powerful and feared a sanction as suspension or
revocation of a licence cannot be measured simply in terms of how far it is
actually used. Its mere existence as a threat will always m a k e it a considerable
but immeasurable deterrent. Even so its effect will be b o u n d to depend to some
extent on the real chance of its being applied. This chance is and has been in
practice so remote that we d o u b t whether fear of licence action has seriously
influenced the behaviour of road transport operators in their attitude to safety
matters. F o r offences against safety, these are the figures of revocations and
suspensions:
T h e s e include the Vehicle E x a m i n e r s , the D r i v i n g a n d Traffic E x a m i n e r s a n d the Traffic
Examiners of the Ministry of T r a n s p o r t , a n d the Inspectors of Weights a n d M e a s u r e s of Local
Authorities.
1st October to 30th
1. N u m b e r of g o o d s
vehicles o n the r o a d
in last q u a r t e r of
twelve m o n t h s
2. $ N u m b e r of prohibition notices: (a) i m m e d i a t e
(b) delayed
(c)
3.
4.
5.
Total
N u m b e r of
p r o s e c u t i o n s for
safety offences:
*jOverloading
t Records
$ Drivers' hours
N u m b e r of carriers'
licences revoked for offences against safety. Vehicles affected
$ N u m b e r of carriers' licences suspended for offences against safety. Vehicles affected
September
1949/50
1952/53
1958/59
1962/63
895,000
956,000
1,273,000
1,470.000
(not
available)
(not
available)
(not
available)
(not
available
7,839
8.037
22.122
24,495
11.551
20.3SS
29,961
32.532
3,891
12,523
2,087
4,826
9,429
1,917
6,568
15,257
4,083
9,663
12,211
4,559
Nil
Nil
Nil Nil
Nil
Nil 1
11
i n c l u d i n g loading defined as d a n g e r o u s (which is not necessarily above the weight permitted
by regulations).
$Source: Licensing A u t h o r i t i e s ' A n n u a l R e p o r t s .
f S o u r c e : H o m e Office R e t u r n s of Offences Relating to M o t o r Vehicles.
On a fleet of \ \ million vehicles, and a number of operators which is not
accurately ascertainable at present but which may well exceed half a million, so
rare a use of a disciplinary power suggests that offences are not dealt with
nearly severely enough.
6.18 T h e figures we give above of defective vehicles, overloading and of
hours and records offences in respect of drivers' hours show how far there is a
failure to comply with proper safety standards, and that this is being detected.
Clearly offences hardly ever lead to action against the c a r r i e r s licence. This
must greatly reduce the deterrent power of the sanction. We conclude that
licensing is not at present having any appreciable disciplinary effect.
The Argument that Licensing is a Protection against Disregard
" Excessive " Competition
of Safety
through
6.19 T h e same facts a b o u t the present widespread failure to observe safety
requirements tell heavily with us in assessing how far licensing, by restricting
" excessive " competition, has enabled operators t o maintain proper safety
standards. These standards have not been kept up, so clearly licensing has not
by any means fully achieved this aim. It is more difficult to say whether, but
for licensing, matters would have been much worse or whether, through stricter
licensing, it could have been made much better. After most careful examination
of the modern history of road transport of goods, and consideration of the
theory of the relation between restrictive licensing and safety, we conclude that
there is little or nothing in the argument that licensing benefits safety by restrict­
ing " excessive " competition. We think that licensing could have had little or
no effect.
6.20 In broad terms, the case m a d e for control of quantity, to ensure safety,
is that with unrestricted entry to the industry, competition would become so
fierce t h a t in a desperate struggle for survival, rates would be cut below the
level of long term costs. Operators would then be forced to cut costs, and the
safety features like maintenance and hours of drivers would be the first to
suffer. Those who advance this argument in support of their case usually point
to the improved conditions in the industry after the passing of the Road and
Rail Traffic Act in 1933.
6.21 By the end of the 1920's, the road haulage of goods was both highly
competitive and unregulated. Not only was there no regulation of competition,
but also no restriction on drivers' hours, no significant control on fitness of
vehicles or their loading and no testing of drivers. Speed limits were honoured
in the breach. With a similar lack of discipline over cars and buses, the toll of
road accidents was high and growing alarmingly.
6.22 It has also been said that the bankruptcy rate among hauliers at the
time was abnormally high, and a connection has been seen directly between
this and the mounting number of accidents. In other words, b o t h pointed to
" excessive " competition.
6.23 The legislation of the early 1930's (mainly the Road Traffic Acts of 1930
and 1934, and the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933) dealt with both the direct
and the indirect approaches to the problem. Safety requirements were laid
down in specific terms, and competition was curtailed by a system whose
object was to limit the total supply of transport to something like the a m o u n t
needed to meet the demand.
6.24 By 1939, the licensing system was fully under way. The situation in road
transport of goods had manifestly improved. And so it was argued that it was
the control of competition that had done the trick. But in fact had it, either in
part or in whole? The direct safety controls which had been imposed
could not have failed to have had some effect, and perhaps a great one. General
economic circumstances had changed from the slump conditions of 1929-31 to
more buoyant conditions of 1937-39. Detailed research into bankruptcies of
the late 1920's has tended to show that the failures in road haulage were probably
not abnormal. Road haulage was a newly developing industry, attractive to
ex-Servicemen on demobilisation after the first World War. The industry was
developing in a period of violent fluctuation in industrial activity, culminating
at the end of the decade in a vast and deep world depression. In these circum­
stances a fair number of bankruptcies in the road haulage industry was probably
only to be expected. Other occupations like that of small shop-keeping were
suffering similarly.
6.25 Looking back, we see a " growing up " of the road haulage industry
after the Act of 1933, and the disappearance of quite a number of its adolescent
blemishes. Quantity control by licensing had been introduced and served to
restrict competition. But four other important factors were also at work.
Parliament had imposed many direct controls on safety. Business confidence and
activity had improved steadily. The firms in road haulage were themselves
learning from experience and were developing in commercial knowledge and
discretion and in operating efficiency. And the motor industry had made great
strides in producing safer sounder vehicles.
6.26 T h a t factors other than the introduction of the quantitative control
aspects of licensing were at work is suggested by what happened to the road
accident records of lorries and cars between 1931 and 1936. The following
table shows the figures:
Rate per thousand
Goods
Vehicles
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
67-7
67-6
70-4
69-8
60-9
58-5
0/ *
/o
Cars
vehicles
/o
55-5
0
4-4
-11
-13
- 4
540
52-7
50-2
42-0
39-3
- 3
- 2
- 5
-16
- 6
All Motor
Vehicles
66-1
64-2
62-9
60-2
51-5
48-6
Ol *
10
- 3
- 2
- 4
-14
- 6
* % - P e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e from previous year.
6.27 It will be noted that while the lorry accident record was improving, so
was that of the car. This invites the conclusion that the forces at work were
applying to both kinds of vehicle. T h e various direct measures such as the
introduction of speed limits and pedestrian crossings, and the improvement in
the technical quality of motor vehicles, were a m o n g such forces. If quantity
control of lorries, or indeed the whole carriers' licensing system, had had any
significant effect, it would have been reasonable to expect that the lorry record
would have improved not just more or less parallel with that of the car but to
a noticeably greater extent. It did not improve thus.
6.28 O u r study of past events, therefore, yields no direct evidence that the
initial limitation of competition imposed by the Road and Rail Traffic Act of
1933 had any appreciable effect on safety.
6.29 As this is however only a verdict of " not proven ", we went o n to try
to analyse and probe the theory of the argument, and also to look around for
other evidence.
6.30 As to the theory that limitation of competition is beneficial to safety,
we conclude that it is ill-founded.
6.31 Although the licensing system tends to reduce the pressure of competition
it has n o t eliminated it within the industry. Operators have an incentive and
are under some pressure to cut their costs. However, there are many ways they
can do this. Some put great effort into achieving high efficiency in operation;
others economise on premises; others pay great heed to their vehicles; others
increase their drivers' hours and cut down vehicle maintenance; others take
lower profits. All these courses are open to an operator, and which he chooses
depends on the man. Moreover even where conditions allow operators to make
large profits there is no guarantee that some operators, in search of still higher
profits, may n o t cut their expenditure on maintenance or exceed the limits on
drivers' hours. We are convinced that it is the sense of responsibility of the
operator, and not the licensing system, which mainly determines the priority he
gives to good maintenance a n d observance of drivers' hours.
6.32 To sum up on the safety aspects of the present licensing system, we
conclude that it has had no appreciable effect, directly or indirectly, on prevailing
safety standards.
POSSIBLE M O D I F I C A T I O N O F L I C E N S I N G T O SECURE GREATER SAFETY 6.33 If our conclusions above are right, it follows that no modification of
the technique of quantity control, by discretionary proof of need, would have
any effect on road safety. We can see no way of modifying the system in a way
which would ensure that the benefits road hauliers obtained by protecti on irom
competition would be spent on safety measures.
6.34 The role of licensing in the field of safety is disciplinary, as a sanction
to secure that lorries are sent on to the roads in a proper state, driven by
responsible men who have not been too long at the wheel.
6.35 The opinions expressed to us by many witnesses leave no d o u b t that
the disciplinary force of removal or suspension of a licence to ply as a carrier
can be very high. We can think of no more effective deterrent to breach of the
law by lorry operators. All other measures are of much less consequence. Fines
are often well worth paying, for the financial gain which the breach of law has
m a d e possible. Gaol sentences would certainly have a salutary effect; but the
Courts would always be reluctant to take this extreme action for offences of
this character. Prohibition of use of vehicles which are unfit carries no direct
financial penalty, and often only means that repair work, which was inevitable
anyway, is at last done. Even a lorry subject to an immediate prohibition notice
may go legally on its way once unloaded, subject only to possible prosecution
under different statutory powers.* Moreover it may go on its way loaded, in
defiance of an immediate prohibition, once the examiners have gone, subject
only to the risk (which may in present circumstances be negligible) of being
stopped again on the road.
6.36 At the present time there can be no doubt that the public and the many
responsible and law-abiding lorry operators would benefit greatly from the
vigorous use of licence action to secure good behaviour. Many who appeared
before us or who gave written evidence agreed with this view.
6.37 While there is therefore no benefit to safety in keeping a quantitative
licensing system, we regard it as essential to keep some form of permit (even
in simplest form available initially on demand and held for as long as it is not
revoked or suspended) so that the right to ply as a carrier, whether of his own
or others' goods, can be revoked, suspended or curtailed. The essential condition
* W e understand t h a t y o u r D e p a r t m e n t is already aware of this situation, a n d has noted the
point for consideration in any future a m e n d i n g legislation.
of such a permit would be that the holder should abide by the requirements of
the law as regards safety; and for any oreach of these requirements, he would
be fully liable not only to the ordinary processes in the courts for the offence
he had committed, but also to lose all or some of his right to continue to
carry goods.
6.38 The influence of this sanction will depend on the likelihood of its use in
practice. At least until there is a marked improvement in those aspects of lorry
safety which we have criticised, the power to revoke, suspend or curtail a
permit should be used sufficiently frequently and widely for every operator to
realise that his livelihood is in very real jeopardy if he does not conform to
the safety regulations. In this imperfect world fear of the consequences is a
spur to endeavour which should be used. These consequences should not only
chastise the wicked but also discourage any thought of falling back by those with
dwindling firmness of purpose.
Enforcement
of Suspension
or
Revocation
6.39 If powers of suspension and revocation of permits were used more
widely, there would be a further problem of enforcement of the penalty.
It
would therefore be necessary to see that those who had had their permits taken
away did not continue to operate without a permit, nor obtain a new one under
another guise.
6.40 T o prevent evasion of the penalty for plying without a permit, a much
larger and more readily visible form of permit plate, perhaps akin to the
present excise registration plate, would be useful. There would be one such
plate per vehicle licensed, and the plate would be removed from the vehicle if a
prohibition notice were issued or if the c a r r i e r s permit in respect of the vehicle
were revoked, suspended or curtailed. Any vehicle then running without a
permit would be particularly conspicuous (just as one without a number plate
is conspicuous at present).
6.41 It would be more difficult to cope with those who sought to evade the
impact of suspension or revocation by applying in a different trading guise for
a new permit in place of one suspended or revoked. (This position can already
arise with C licensed operators under the present system. It does not seem to
have done so in practice simply because there has been so little revocation,
suspension or curtailment of licences). The difficulty might be met by a combina­
tion of measures. The application for a permit could include a declaration that
the applicant was not currently under any revocation, suspension or curtailment
order. In addition, there could be a further declaration that he was not directly
connected in business with anyone who had lost his permit. As a further safe­
guard the applicant could at the discretion of the Licensing Authority be
required to declare the names of the shareholders, of the directors and of the
holders of the main management posts in the firm, the firnfs address and the
address where the vehicles were normally kept. False declaration could be
severely punished. Correct declarations should be sufficient to reveal any
significant participation in the firm's affairs by anyone barred temporarily or
for longer term from holding a permit. F o r any who got through the net, there
would be the ever present risk of detection from visits to premises by those
responsible for the law relating to the hours of work of drivers or the mainten­
ance of vehicles in good condition. The system might not be wholly proof
against determined evasion by any one prepared to commit a criminal offence.
But we think it could without too much elaboration put formidable difficulties
in the way of anyone trying t o evade the regulations.
Duplication of Punishment
6.42 We have considered at some length whether the disciplinary powers of
the Licensing Authorities, exercised after an offence has already been punished
by the Courts, constitute a second punishment, which might be held to be
inequitable. N o one complained to us on these lines, though the situation has
stood ever since licensing was introduced. There seems no case for any change.
The punishment by the Courts is for disobedience of the law of the land. Any
action by the Licensing Authorities is designed to see that the commercial use
of vehicles with great potential for danger to the public is allowed only to those
who continue to show themselves to be fit and proper persons thus to be trusted.
The two functions are quite separate. We would not be attracted by either of
the alternatives—giving Magistrates' Courts the power to take away a c a r r i e r s
permit or giving Licensing Authorities the power to fine for breaches of the
safety regulations and turning them into hauliers' courts.
Duality of the Licensing Authority's
Role
6.43 On one aspect alone of the Licensing Authority's disciplinary role does
a change seem desirable. At present the Vehicle Examiners and Traffic Examiners
are under his control. These officials detect the offences, bring the prosecutions,
and give evidence in the Magistrates' C o u r t s ; a n d if disciplinary licensing action
is taken they in effect play the same parts before the Licensing Authority acting
as a judge. This a m o u n t s to making the Licensing Authority judge and jury,
prosecutor and policeman, all in the same case. This situation does not seem in
fact to have worked unfairly, but in principle we regard it as unsound, as do the
Licensing Authorities themselves. It would be advisable to preserve the manifest
impartiality of the Licensing Authorities when exercising their disciplinary
function, by relieving them of their responsibility to control the enforcement
staffs.
Responsibility
for Safe
Operation
6.44 In the course of our study of enforcement of the safe condition of lorries,
we were frequently struck by the problem of responsibility. Drivers often knew
their lorries were in p o o r shape; but their j o b was to drive, not to maintain;
and when they reported defects, they might well be told to get on with the j o b
they were employed to d o . Indeed it was clear that in some cases the frequent
reporting of defects by drivers was unwelcome to employers, and that these
drivers soon found their jobs at risk if they persisted in drawing attention to the
need for repairs. Maintenance staffs were not always given the necessary oppor­
tunities to carry out their vital work, and the d e m a n d s of the traffic department
often had higher priority. Often those ultimately responsible for the conduct of
the business did not k n o w of the true state of their vehicles, and would have
been horrified to find out the truth. (We came across cases where this was so).
6.45 If an order of revocation, suspension or curtailment of a licence of a
small firm is made, clearly those at the top of that firm will soon get to know.
But where the firm is large, perhaps national in scale, licence action might apply
to only a small and local part of what they were doing. The directors or top
management might then be wholly unaware of local events.
6.46 It is essential that a proper system of supervision be set up in every
o p e r a t o r s business to make sure that no unsafe vehicle is put upon the road.
To meet this situation, we considered whether the permit should be personal
to some senior official of the firm, or even to the t o p m a n himself. Then any
proceedings could easily be brought most forcibly to the attention of someone
with adequate power to take appropriate action. But the cause of disciplinary
action would usually be day to day matters for which top management was
entitled to delegate responsibility, and for which it might not be fair to punish
the top men personally.
6.47 The point would be met if the application form for a permit had to
show the name of the owner of the firm or a director of the company as applicant
and he had to acknowledge personally in writing any notice sent of permit
action taken or threatened by the Licensing Authority. The same procedure
might with advantage be used when a prohibition notice was served following
a check of a vehicle^ roadworthiness. Action on these lines would not be unfair
in principle nor unduly burdensome to those with wide and heavy responsibilities.
But it could hardly fail to ensure that t o p management knew what was going
on in the lower reaches of their organisations; and this would be bound to have
a salutary effect.
MEASURES OTHER THAN
LICENSING
FOR EFFECTING
SAFETY
6.48 A permit system to provide a sanction in safety matters is of high
importance. But this does not mean that it is the only way to achieve safety, or
even the most important way. The safety features which we have considered
(good maintenance of vehicles, loading within safe limits and observance of
statutory limits on hours of drivers) can also be brought about by direct enforce­
ment. This would include advice, caution or, in the last resort, prosecutions in
the Magistrates' Courts.
Maintenance
of Lorries
6.49 We know that the maintenance of lorries is a matter to which your
Department and the industry are giving much attention. From what we have
ourselves seen and heard, we fully endorse the need for this action. We welcome
your intention to introduce a system of annual inspection for heavy lorries
though we are sure that these must be regarded as a supplement to, and not a
substitute for, the r a n d o m roadside checks which have been the main approach
to this problem in the past. We would see great advantage in the extension of
these r a n d o m checks, some being surprise checks, others announced in advance.
Such checks, even if they do not catch all defective vehicles passing by, should
at least ensure that a man driving a lorry he knows to be defective will, if he is
not caught in the net, realise that he has had a lucky escape and will so inform
the owner when the vehicle reaches its base.
6.50 There would also be advantage in increasing the trouble to which a
lorry owner is put if his vehicle is found at a roadside check to be defective.
Indeed he should be positively penalised to some extent for being thus caught.
It should certainly not be sufficient as it is at present, that unloading the vehicle
should then allow him if he wishes to go back on the road with the vehicle
u n d e r its own power. If the vehicle is a danger when loaded, it is not usually
m u c h less so when empty. We would also envisage that any lorry subject to a
prohibition notice should have confiscated its permit plate (which we suggested
in p a r a g r a p h 6.40). T h e plate would only be returned when the vehicle had
been put right and inspected. Moreover, it would be useful if a fee with a penal
element in it were charged for return of the plate, and if perhaps a " t i c k e t "
system of fining (with suitable appeal procedure) were considered.
Overloading
of Lorries
6.51 We are informed that your Department is working on the development
of a scheme of limits to the loaded weight of a lorry much more precise than
that contained in present regulations. We understand that under this scheme
(known colloquially as " the plating scheme") all lorries would have to carry a
readily visible plate showing the m a x i m u m permitted loaded weight of the
vehicle. In fixing this weight account would be taken of the main safety factors
of the vehicle—braking capacity, strength of suspension and chassis, tyres and
probably also the power to weight ratio. The full introduction of such a scheme
should help materially to stop the dangerous practice of overloading. T o be
fully effective the plating scheme would of course need to be backed u p by
an adequate enforcement effort, and this would involve the provision of weighing
equipment on a wider scale than at present. It would also be appropriate that
penalties for overloading should be quick and immediately deterrent. F o r
instance, the permit plate we propose should be removed at once from any
vehicle found overloaded; and recovery of the plate when the overload has
been removed should be subject to the same procedure as we set out in the
preceding paragraph relating to defective vehicles.
Drivers'
Hours
6.52 The enforcement of the drivers' hours regulations should clearly be
strengthened. We have noted that you have already taken steps in this direction;
a n d these measures accord well with our ideas on this aspect of safety. It would
also be right that an operator found guilty of any lack of due diligence in
securing observance by his drivers of the statutory hours should find himself at
great risk of having his c a r r i e r s permit suspended in whole or in part in addition
t o any punishment which the Courts might inflict. Over-driving is a most
dangerous practice, and any owner who procures or condones it should be made
to realise that by so doing he is jeopardising his c a r r i e r s permit.
Licensing of Lorry
Drivers
6.53 A heavy lorry can be a particularly menacing vehicle if not well driven.
M o r e is called for than the skills and attitude of the ordinary motorist. We
understand t h a t it is intended to reintroduce a special driving licence for heavy
lorries, and we welcome this step. T h e existence of such a licence, apart from its
other considerable merits, would make it possible to apply to drivers guilty of
safety offences a discipline similar to that which revocation, suspension or
curtailment of a c a r r i e r s permit would provide in respect of his employer. In
this way the fringe of drivers whose behaviour does not match their responsibil­
ities could be cut off, to the advantage of the good reputation of the heavy lorry
driver as well as to the benefit of the public at large.
Qualification
Requirements for
Hauliers
6.54 A measure which was put to us which might have possible advantage
so far as safety was concerned was that would-be hauliers should have to give
some proof of their knowledge a n d understanding of the j o b and what it
entailed, before being granted a permit. Haulage gives a deceptive first impression
of simplicity as an occupation. Some of the dangerous practices which from
time to time arise in it probably owe something to lack of awareness of the
law and of good techniques of safe operation. It was suggested to us that some
kind of entry qualification with a syllabus covering for instance the elements
of road transport law and of vehicle maintenance would be beneficial.
6.55 Under such a system, new entrants would know from the outset the
standards of behaviour with which they would have to comply and what this
entailed. Since some period of study would be essential, the casual and irres­
ponsible entrant would be deterred.
6.56 Something akin to this idea is widely practised abroad. It is in its most
highly developed form in the Netherlands (where qualifications are required
for entry into most occpations). Most other European countries have some
kind of scrutiny of individuals before they are allowed to become hauliers. The
case for education before entry is stronger where ignorance in plying a trade
may endanger the public.
6.57 O n the other hand, there can be no doubt that men have entered and
d o enter haulage in this country at present, and carry out their responsibilities
well, although they might find difficulty in coping with some form of examina­
tion on a prescribed syllabus. They make good hauliers and the country would
be the loser for debarring such men.
6.58 While we do not recommend the prescription of an entry qualification
at present, a voluntary training scheme for those already in the haulage business
would have merit. So too would the setting up of appropriate courses on a
voluntary basis for those who wish to enter the industry. The former kind of
training will probably flow from the bringing into effect, in respect of the road
transport industry, of the Industrial Training Act. The same machinery might
also encourage or stimulate the provision of training facilities for aspiring
hauliers.
6.59 It was also put to us that besides being professionally qualified, a new
entrant should be required to put down a sum of money on deposit as evidence
of his substance. The connection with safety of this proposal seems at best
remote. In practice we see nothing to commend it. If the money were deposited
beyond the reach of the new entrant, he would in effect have had to freeze a
substantial sum of capital which might much better have been used to sec him
through his early and difficult period in the industry. If the deposit were all
that stood between him and entry to the industry, he would be put under heavy
pressure to b o r r o w it, perhaps at a heavy rate of interest, so that it was a
millstone round his neck.
COST O F E N F O R C I N G S A F E T Y
RULES 6.60 The combination of all the approaches we envisage would bring about
a much higher degree of safety. But all would require expenditure on manpower
and equipment on a scale far greater than present levels. This should not be
allowed to be an obstacle. It would be appropriate that the industry should
bear the ultimate cost, through fees or penalties, just as the costs of the present
licensing system and the enforcement of drivers' hours, and the costs of roadside
checks, are borne through the fees paid for c a r r i e r s licences. The saving of the
cost of the present system of quantitative control by licensing would of itself
pay for a considerable increase in direct enforcement effort.
THE ROLE OF THE COURTS
6.61 Wc do not question the desirability of maintaining the independence
of the judiciary and we would be unwilling to see any instructions given to the
Magistrates except by the superior Courts. We feel however that m o r e could
be done to bring home to the Magistrates the greater danger to all other users
of the road of a defective or overloaded vehicle, or one driven by a tired driver.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.62 The present system of licensing has not been responsible for bringing
about an appropriate degree of observance of safety of lorries. We can see no
practical way of altering the system of quantity control to achieve greater
safety. However a permit to carry goods, unrelated to quantity control, has a
vital place as a disciplinary measure, which should be widely used. T h e annual
inspection of heavy vehicles and increased roadside checks would be valuable.
Vehicles found defective at these inspections and checks or overloaded could
be stripped of their permit plate. Operators persistently offending and found
contravening regulations on drivers hours should be deprived of their c a r r i e r s
permit. This would generally be a more reliable deterrent than a fine of any
a m o u n t which seems likely to be passed by Parliament or imposed by the
Courts. Steps might also be taken to ensure that the Courts are aware of the
seriousness of offences against safety. If sufficiently used these measures should
largely eliminate the fringe of reckless drivers and irresponsible operators.
L i c e n s i n g a n d Efficiency
7.1 T h e second policy objective against which we assess licensing is the
promotion of the efficiency of road transport of goods. We define " efficiency "
by saying that it would be at its maximum when the road transport of goods
was being carried out effectively, to meet the diverse and varying needs of its
customers, with the minimum demand on national resources, while maintaining
stringent standards of safety and appropriate working conditions for those
employed.
Measurement
of
Efficiency
7.2 It is easier to say what we mean by efficiency than to measure efficiency
itself. It may be possible to c o m p a r e some aspects of the efficiency of two firms
in the same line of business, b u t this would not help us here. N o r is thcie much
scope for comparison between road transport in different countries, since basic
circumstances vary so widely. The best we can do is to consider a number of
factors from which it may be possible to deduce whether the efficiency of road
transport of goods in this country would be greater in the absence of quantity
control by licensing.
7.3 T o the casual observer, road transport of goods presents an encouraging
impression of efficiency. As we have said already (Chapter 3) there was no sig­
nificant element of customer dissatisfaction in evidence to us (though this might
owe something to the freedom of the user to run his own vehicles if that were
the only way he could get the service he wanted, and to the absence of any other
yardstick by which to make comparisons). There is certainly competition in the
industry. Generally if one haulier fails to give good service, there is a competitor
ready and willing to step into his place. It must be recognised however that such
competition is almost entirely confined to those already established within the
licensing system—competition from new entrants plays hardly any part. The
industry has seemed alert to new needs, and not slow to adopt new techniques
(e.g. the use of specialised vehicles for carriage of bulk materials—though here
the lead has often been given by the own account operator). There has been no
serious suggestion of a crying need for new blood to invigorate the industry.
7.4 It would be wrong however to judge the industry and the effects of licen­
sing solely on this basis. Measurement of efficiency is hardly practical. There is
also little evidence of the effect on efficiency of different arrangements in other
countries. Our examination of the relationship between licensing and efficiency
therefore depends greatly on o u r views about the implications of the principal
features of the present system of quantity control by licensing. We can discern
the direction in which licensing tends to work where efficiency is concerned,
even if we cannot measure the effect.
Limits imposed by
Licensing
7.5 Every form of licence in one way or another restricts the licence holder.
For the A licensee his declared " normal user " sets a framework for his oper­
ations from which he can only depart to a marginal extent. If he wishes to change
his work profoundly, he must p u t his licence at risk by reapplying, and for
major changes objection to a grant is more than likely from those already in or
laying claim to his new trade. He can hardly be blamed therefore for not seeking
change. The A Contract licensee is firmly tied to one customer only and so must
forego any opportunities for more intensive use of his vehicle which would arise
from carrying goods for others. T h e B licensee is confined to the conditions of
his licence, and this may give him greater or less scope but never complete
freedom. F o r him, the return load is denied unless it comes within his conditions.
The C licensee can carry only for himself.*
7.6 This certainly seems to be a formidable series of restrictions. Could it be
that in fact the reality of restriction was less than it a p p e a r e d ? In other words,
perhaps operators in various licence categories were content with the limited
freedom they already had, since they would have been hard p u t to it in practice
to make use of greater freedom. This was the argument of the C licensed
operators' representatives when they said that in general they did not seek to
be able to carry for hire or reward. They said that most C licensed operators ran
their own vehicles to meet their own special need; and that they would not be
interested in interrupting the s m o o t h flow of performance in meeting these needs
just to seek out loads for profit. But even this argument was not completely
adhered to. F o r instance, it was represented to us by a number of organisations
that the freedom conferred upon a holding company in respect of subsidiaries
at least 9 0 % owned should be extended to subsidiaries which were majority
owned. Such proposals would hardly have been m a d e had it n o t been that the
present arrangement inhibits operations.
7.7 It is probably true that for many C operators greater use of vehicle capacity
can only be achieved by reducing the standard of service more t h a n is acceptable.
But it would also be surprising if there were found in practice to be no useful
economies, over the country as a whole, from C licensed operators looking a r o u n d
to find others whose road transport requirements could be fitted in well with
their own. The present limitation, which has held for 30 years, has inhibited C
operators from this pattern of thought, and therefore from actively looking for
opportunities.
7.8 Greater freedom would not a m o u n t to turning all traders or manufac­
turcrs into hauliers. The own account operator has a very firm priority and a
fairly rigid starting position—his first duty is to meet his own firm's needs.
W h a t he might gain from a return load would cost him dear if he thereby upset
his own movement programme. But so far as there are movements on the behalf
of others which he could fit in with his own, and thereby avoid some empty or
part loaded running, we are sure that present licensing must be an impediment
to efficiency. And in so far as his own needs fluctuate, and he finds it desirable
to keep enough lorries to cope with his peak demands, at other times his fleet is
likely to be under used.
7.9 On all sides too we found dissatisfaction with the " n o r m a l user " arrange­
ments for A licences. The hauliers' associations and the hauliers themselves who
gave evidence to us were unhappy a b o u t the restrictions which " normal user "
*Unless h e is a holding c o m p a n y with at least a 9 0 % h o l d i n g of the issued s h a r e capital of a
subsidiary o r subsidiaries, in which case a degree of freedom t o use e a c h c o m p a n y ' s vehicles
u n d e r the holding c o m p a n y ' s C licence c a n be o b t a i n e d by a p p l i c a t i o n to the Licensing
Authority.
attached to what they clearly felt ought to have been the (original) concept of a
licence freely to ply anywhere, a n y time, with anything. So much feeling could
hardly have been generated against a purely " paper " restriction. It must have
been against the real restriction imposed by " normal user " that hauliers were
complaining.
General Effects on Efficiency of Licensing
Restrictions
7.10 T h e various licensing restrictions are bound to have a considerable
bearing on efficiency. First, competition will inevitably be lessened. Second, the
most efficient use of vehicles will from time to time be inhibited. Third, speed of
adaptability to new situations and needs will be reduced.
7.11 Competition is a considerable spur to efficiency. And competition
certainly exists in road haulage, sometimes to a fierce extent, sometimes less so.
But licensing inevitably prevents new men and firms from entering the industry
as and when opportunity seems to them to be present. And it must also inhibit
the expansion or redirection of the operations of existing firms. ( F r o m what we
heard in evidence, the influence on new entry is greater than that on expansion
or redirection). In tending therefore to prevent these changes in particular parts
of the haulage market, the licensing system must make it easier for the less
efficient to hold their place, and more difficult for those more efficient to displace
them. T h e restriction of competition also creates a situation more conducive to
the operation of restrictive arrangements and understandings of a kind likely to
be adverse to efficiency.
7.12 T h e imposition of more or less stringent restrictions on the use to which
a lorry can be p u t must also frequently reduce the efficiency of its operation. In
considering the question of load factors (Chapter 3), we have shown that the
proportion of full-load running of a lorry is not necessarily an appropriate mcas­
ure of efficiency. But obviously the aim of minimum use of transport resources
is more nearly achieved the more any one vehicle is used. Efficiency as we have
defined it can only be less if licensing means, as it often docs, that two vehicles
have to be used where one would d o . This view is confirmed by the steady stream
of applications for full A licences by A Contract operators who produce as
evidence the pressure of their customers for the lower rates which more work
for their vehicles would make possible; and in the intermittent attempts by C
licensed operators to break into the hire or reward field for basically the same
reason.
7.13 A third effect of licensing restrictions on efficiency is that the ability of
hauliers to a d a p t quickly to the changing needs of their customers must be
reduced. The haulage services required by trade and industry are ever-changing,
often at short notice. A ship carrying imports which normally came to London
m a y be diverted to Liverpool, which may be beyond the conditions of a B
licensed haulier who has for long served a particular importer. Or the trader may
change his supplier to one from another part of the country. His regular haulier
can only continue to serve him if he can survive the process of getting his licence
conditions changed. If he cannot, the trader must find a new haulier with whom
he must build up that mutual understanding which is essential to efficiency.
7.14 All the effects of licensing on efficiency which we have discussed above
must find their reflection in costs and hence in prices. It is not possible for us to
say by how much costs and prices are raised by the system. The effects of the
system cannot in general be measured, or their relative importance established,
by reference to observed events and situations. It is in the nature of things that
these effects have to be inferred from the nature of the restrictions; and the
severity of the restrictions is largely a matter of judgement. We think that the
adverse effects of licensing on efficiency and the prices of haulage services are
sufficiently important to be a serious criticism of the system.
The Control of Capacity and the Price of
Licences
7.15 It was the opinion of some of those who gave evidence to us that, partic­
ularly since the change of emphasis in the proof of need was made in 1953, the
licensing system had not in practice significantly affected the availability of
haulage capacity. But our impression is that within this broad situation there are
circumstances in which the system has been restrictive. A possible index of the
extent to which licensing has this effect would be the scarcity value of a haulage
licence. Although licences cannot at law be transferred by sale*, we were told
that licences in fact have a market value, and that in recent years the price of A
licences in some transactions has been as high as £300 a licensed ton. One
interpretation would be that these prices represent the capitalised value of the
additional profits secured by licence-holders by virtue of their ownership of the
licences in a situation of restricted total supply. New entrants or established
firms wishing to increase their capacity apparently have been willing to pay
such prices. If this interpretation were correct, the prices paid for licences would
be a direct measure of the severity of the control of capacity by licensing.
7.16 In practice the purchase of the licence is not a separate transaction. It is
tied u p with the purchase of a going concern (the licence of a dead business is
worthless, as the Licensing Authority will not agree to its transfer to a new
owner) and the value-of-licence element in the total price paid would not
normally be stated separately or be easily calculable by a third party.
7.17 A realistic measurement of the current scarcity value of licences in
different parts of the industry is elusive, and we have no systematic data. But we
arc satisfied that in many transactions a price is paid in effect for the special
value of the licence held by the sellers. It has been put to us that in many or most
of these transactions where there appears to have been a payment for the
licence as such, the buyer paid the price because of his failure, as a newcomer,
to understand the working of the licensing system, with the resultant tendency
for him to have an exaggerated view of the difficulties of obtaining a licence
without payment (except for the fee) by application t o the Licensing Authority.
Even if it were the case that all or most payments for licences were misguided
and unnecessary, it would suggest that the licensing system is regarded by new­
comers as if it were sufficiently restrictive to warrant material payments to
circumvent its rigours and to secure a place within its shelter. Misguided pay­
ments for licences have no d o u b t been made in some cases, but we do doubt
whether they have been c o m m o n . We are impressed by the fact that relatively
*But a new licence is granted w i t h o u t further question t o the purchaser of a n existing
business provided t h a t the Licensing A u t h o r i t y is satisfied that the business is a going concern.
A n d where t h e purchase of the business is by way of t h e shares in a c o m p a n y , the n o m i n a l
holding of the licence is u n c h a n g e d , so n o question of transfer arises.
few A licences have in recent years been issued to newcomers. Moreover, ignor­
ance of the system cannot explain the frequent transactions in which one
established haulage firm buys the business of another and pays a price which
includes something for its licences. We conclude that in some parts of the
industry control has been restrictive. To the extent that quantitative control by
licensing curtails the volume of road haulage services, we would expect the prices
of these services for this reason alone to be higher, the difference reflecting the
advantage conferred on those fortunate enough to have been granted licences
to serve a market in which supply is restricted.
The Bias Imparted by Licensing to Own Account
Operation
7.18 The inevitable delays and considerable complexity of licensing are in
our view a partial explanation of the decisions of many traders to use their own
vehicles rather than those of hauliers. They must often have felt that any minor
disadvantage of running their own transport was to be offset against the troubles
and inflexibilities of having their goods carried by a haulier whose licence would
have to be extended to deal with an increase in their traffic, or adjusted to cope
with a change in its character. If they used their own vehicles, details of their
commercial operations remained in their own confidence. If they wanted to use
a haulier their operations and their plans might well have to be disclosed in open
court, to the advantage of their competitors; and there might well be delay
before the additional vehicles were available.
7.19 We think that the whole procedure of control of licences for haulage
has tended to bias traders in favour of using their own vehicles under C licence;
and that this is part though by no means all of the explanation of the growth of
the number of C vehicles in recent years. T o the extent that this bias has been
present, it has added to the n u m b e r of vehicles operating under the most
restrictive category of licence. In this way the restrictive system of licensing of
hauliers has reduced overall transport efficiency: by increasing the share of traffic
carried in lorries most restricted as to use, it has increased the volume of vehicle
movements on the roads.
The Case for Quantity
Control by Licensing as an Aid to
Efficiency
7.20 We have set out above the adverse effects of restrictive licensing on
efficiency, with the consequential tendency for transport costs to be higher than
they would be otherwise, to the detriment of users and the economy as a whole.
It has been put to us, on the other hand, that users of road transport derive
benefit or advantage from licensing because, without it, conditions in the road
haulage industry would be such as to have harmful effects.
7.21 It has been suggested that without controls on entry and capacity,
competition would be so fierce that rates would often be at uneconomic levels,
that there would be a rapid turnover of small firms, and that chronic excess
capacity would emerge. The industry, it is said, would be intolerably unstable
in its composition; quality of service would go down with uneconomic rate­
cutting; and efficient firms would withdraw from an unprofitable industry. T h e
industry, furthermore, would not be able to render the " public service "
expected of it.
7.22 We do not accept this analysis. It is not supported by our reading of the
earlier history of the industry in this country, when allowance is m a d e for the
underlying economic conditions at the time, and for the rapid growth of the
industry in its early years. The lesson of foreign experience, though limited by
the rarity of instances anywhere in the world of uncontrolled road haulage, also
goes against the analysis. Moreover, the pessimistic view of the working of
uncontrolled competition does not in our view take adequate account of major
elements of stability in several of the main markets for transport services. We
were impressed by evidence that many users put a high value on continuity of
service and business connections and on dependability of service. Again, the
small-scale new entrant is unable to enter markets where large-scale operations
are essential or offer real economies. Uneconomic rate-cutting, even if it were to
occur in fringe markets, would be unlikely to undermine efficient operations in
the major sectors of the industry where customers' preferences for quality and
stability are important. Where quality and continuity of service are important
to users, regulation of entry or of capacity is not necessary because the behaviour
of the users themselves will bring about the required stability; and where
quality and continuity are not demanded by users, there is no need for controls
to impose stability in their interest, and no case to impose them for the then sole
benefit of those who have chosen haulage as their livelihood.
Haulage as a " Public Service "
7.23 We have had no evidence that the " public service " provided by road
transport under licensing is different from that of any other service provided
commercially t o the public: haulage firms are not required by their licences to
supply at a loss some services to particular users or to assume extra-commercial
obligations. It seems unlikely that, without quantity control by licensing, the
road haulage industry would discontinue or reduce any of the services it pro­
vides at present.
Control of Pates as an Aid to
Efficiency
7.24 It has been suggested to us that, while quantity control by licensing is
unnecessary to ensure stability of the road haulage industry in the interest of
users, there is nevertheless a serious risk that some rate-cutting may be un­
economic and undesirable, and that this should be avoided by the imposition of
a system of minimum rates. As we have explained above, however, we do not
believe that rate-cutting would have adverse effects on users and the economy
such that public intervention was required. A practicable system of minimum
rates for transport services would be very cumbersome and costly to operate
and enforce. It would also be likely, if effectively enforced, to impede the flexi­
bility of pricing which is necessary for efficient adjustment by hauliers to the
ever-changing and particular business circumstances to which each is exposed.
Direct Costs of Licensing
7.25 On the effect of licensing on costs and prices, there is the final point t h a t
the application and objection procedures for haulage licences must of themselves
impose additional costs. The cost of the G o v e r n m e n t ^ side of the system (i.e.
of the Licensing Authorities and their stalls) is recouped through fees for carriers'
licences, bringing in some £ l m . a year (of which about £400,000 is attributable
to the costs of enforcing maintenance of vehicles and observance of drivers'
hours.) T h e cost to the industry is not only these fees, however, but also the
costs of legal representation, of witnesses at enquiries, and of management time
and effort devoted to the licensing side of the business. We cannot quantify this
cost, b u t we are sure that it can be appreciable, if not invariably at least in
particular cases.
Summary
and
Conclusions
7.26 While the road transport of goods gives no outward appearance of
inefficiency, the limitations on vehicle use imposed by the present licensing
system inevitably cause waste and hence higher costs and prices. The system also
reduces flexibility of operation and restricts competition. Its control of the
haulage part of the industry promotes the growth of own account operations.
Its procedures are themselves an added cost. We d o not accept the idea that by
controlling competition, the present system of licensing promotes efficiency.
T h e system impedes efficiency in important ways, and thereby imposes a sig­
nificant economic burden.
Licensing and Amenity The Physical Effect of Road Transport on
Environment
8.1 T h e reduction of the adverse effects of road traffic on amenity is the third
of the policy objectives against which we judge control of road transport of goods
by licensing.
8.2 There can be no gainsaying that lorries are usually much noisier than most
other road vehicles; their big engines necessarily discharge large volumes of
exhaust fumes into the atmosphere; and they are also obtrusive because of their
size. They can become a public nuisance, offending ear, nose and eye. T h e lorry
is not the perfect servant going almost unseen and unheard about its business. It
often makes a rough, unpleasing, and perhaps unhealthy impact on people as
individuals and on environment at large. Its points of contact with us all are many
and almost inescapable.
Noise
8.3 The report of the Wilson Committee on Noise* has much to say on the
noise caused by road traffic in general, and heavy commercial vehicles in par­
ticular. A study carried out in Central London showed that road traffic was the
predominant cause of noise at 8 4 % of the survey points. 3 6 % of people questioned
were disturbed by traffic noise when at home and 2 0 % when outdoors. The
Buchanan Report gave an cxamplef of a modern office block where the level of
noise due to traffic was well above the level at which conversation can con­
venicntly be carried on. There can be no doubt that noise is a serious nuisance,
particularly in towns, and that heavy lorries are a m o n g the main contributors. As
more knowledge is gained, a connection between noise and health may also be
found to exist.
Exhaust
Gases
8.4 The Buchanan Report also stresses:!", the nuisance caused by engine fumes in
cities. These fumes are certainly unpleasant to inhale and may well be a danger to
health. And the size of lorry engines means that each heavy lorry is producing at
least 3 times as much exhaust gas as the average 1A litre car.
8.5 When for any reason the lorry exhaust contains an excess of unburnt fuel,
the exhaust gases become a belching cloud of black smoke. This smoke is particuIarly unpleasant to breathe and is very dirty. In the large volumes in which it
sometimes occurs it can be a hazard to road safety, partly because its unpleasant­
ness impels following drivers to press on and overtake the offending lorry, when
it might be wiser for them to hang back. There is a substantial minority of diesel­
engined lorries which persistently emit quantities of black smoke. In a country­
* N o i s c ; G r i n d 2056, 1963 C h a p t e r III. t " Traffic in T o w n s " p p . 212 a n d 213. j " Traffic in T o w n s " page 2 1 . wide check in September 1964 your Department Found that 1 4 i % of the lorries
observed were producing excessive smoke.
The Role of Licensing in Securing
Amenity
8.6 The original design of licensing made no attempt to deal with problems of
amenity. Only if licensing had led to somewhat fewer lorries on the roads could
it be held to have had any beneficial effect. But we are satisfied that it did not have
this effect.
8.7 If licensing were to make a greater contribution to solution of problems of
amenity, it could only do so indirectly. The main way would be to use licensing
to reduce the total number of lorries, by transferring their traffic to rail or other
forms of transport less hurtful to amenity. In a secondary way, licensing could also
help by serving as an additional sanction against offenders who broke direct laws
as to noise o r smoke etc.
8.8 T o use licensing to benefit amenity, by a general reduction in the number
of goods vehicles, would involve the difficulties which we shall discuss in Chapter
9 below when we consider licensing and the railways. As we have seen in con­
sidering licensing and safety (Chapter 6) the disciplinary use of licensing does not
need to depend on a quantity control. Any form of licence issued on demand and
held " during good behaviour " would suffice.
Direct Ways of Protecting
Amenity
8.9 Apart from the indirect approach by means of licensing, there are several
other direct courses of action available to ensure that the use of goods vehicles
is not intolerable to the public generally. The noise and smoke problems are not
easy to handle, not least because of the difficulties of definition and measurement.
But we know that the active search for solutions is continuing. The steps being
taken to improve road-worthiness of vehicles will also help, both by reducing the
number of cases where noise is caused by the rattle of parts of the lorry, and by
encouraging improvement in the general condition of the vehicle. Ideas like the
uprising exhaust pipe and the wider use of mudflaps also seem to us to offer
prospects of making the lorry more acceptable to its fellow road-users. More use
could also be made of bans on lorries in particular streets or on roads where their
presence may offend general ideas of amenity (as is already clone, for example, in
the Royal Parks in London).
8.10. The direct approach seems to us the only reliable way to reduce the
harmful effects of lorries on amenity. Nothing useful can be done through
licensing.
Summary
and
Conclusions
8.11 Lorries often offend the ear and nose, and sometimes the eye too. Their
total numbers and the way they permeate our national life make them a potential
public nuisance on a large scale. T h e strengthening of existing measures designed
to cope directly with excess noise and smoke is the best way of tackling the
problem. Quantity control by licensing cannot help significantly, though a permit
to ply (on the lines discussed in Chapter 6) would provide a disciplinary sanction
against operators of persistently offensive lorries.
Licensing a n d t h e R a i l w a y s
THE EFFECTS OF LICENSING
ON THE
RAILWAYS
9.1 The Salter Conference put forward several reasons for recommending the
introduction of a system of licensing of road transport of goods. But their
declared underlying object was the establishment of a fair basis of competition
such as would tend to secure a better division of goods traffic between rail and
road. And behind this in turn lay the view of the Royal Commission on Transport
that " road competition must continue to affect the railways adversely ".* T h e
present licensing system therefore owes its origins to the growth of road transport
of goods at the expense of the railways, and a general feeling that " the greatest
public advantage " would be achieved by the regulation (i.e. to some extent the
restriction) of this development.
9.2 Such an aim might still be a m o n g the objectives of government transport
policy. It has been said that the greater use of an existing large-scale capital asset,
and of a means of transport with fewer adverse social repercussions, would be
advantageous, particularly in the light of the present heavy pressure on our roads.
These considerations would of course have to be weighed in the balance against
the economic benefits which road transport gives and which we can ill afford to
forego in a competitive trading world. Through all that the Salter Conference
said in its Report about a system of licensing ran the important thread of meeting
the needs of industry and trade: " we are equally impressed with the evil of any
system which would prevent trade and industry from securing the form of
transport which is best adapted to its ever-changing needs at the lowest practicable
cost that can be obtained on a salutary basis ".
9.3 In reaching any decision to seek to influence traffic from road to rail, again
it would be necessary to follow the line of the Salter Conference and the whole
question of track costs would also have to be taken into account.
9.4 Nothing in this chapter should be interpreted as approval or disapproval of
the policy objective of seeking to influence traffic from road to rail. We regard this
issue as outside our terms of reference. We seek to do no more than to examine
the quantity control of road haulage by licensing in relation to the policy objective.
We do this by considering in turn how far the licensing system has afforded any
direct advantage to the railways in the past; whether it offers an instrument to give
effect to such a policy in future, if that were desired; and whether there might be
other and perhaps less disadvantageous ways to the same end.
9.5 As originally conceived and put into effect through the Road and Rail
Traffic Act 1933, the licensing system gave the railways an opportunity to plead
the existence of their facilities as a reason why more road haulage licences should
not be granted. This was an opportunity which they may at first have used
effectively. Certainly they devoted a considerable effort to taking advantage of
their opportunity. They vigorously opposed applications, large or small, for
T h e Royal C o m m i s s i o n ^ Final R e p o r t , p a r a g r a p h 130.
carriers' licences for hire or reward. (In the process, they relieved many existing
hauliers from any sense of need to make objections—with so powerful a n objector
already in the field, many a small man did not go to the trouble and expense of
briefing Counsel to object on his behalf).
9.6 During the war, other factors came into play, and there was n o doubt in
those years that the railways were the dominant carriers of goods in this country.
But in the post-war period, when the wartime scarcities of rubber and oil no longer
caused the Government to apply a heavy curb on road haulage, we think that
licensing has had a negligible effect on the distribution of goods traffic between
road and rail.
9.7 T h e reasons for this are fairly clear. For nearly a decade after the war the
railways were perforce using equipment which was b o t h obsolete and, after the
intensive use made of it during the war, in far from good shape. Their management
approach was conditioned by the statutory and historical framework which
encumbered them. F r o m the consignors point of view, there was a great difference
between what the railways could offer and what road transport could do. Road
transport with its rapid improvement in vehicles could provide a d o o r to door
service which was nearly always faster than the railways, with less handling, fewer
breakages, less pilferage, more personal attention and at a lower cost. For the
short haul, the lorry had now obviously become the right means of transport. And
for the consignor, the balance of advantage even for long hauls often lay clearly
in using road transport.
9.8 T h u s for industry and trade the advantages of road transport were enjoyed
increasingly in terms of speed, price, flexibility and service: these advantages
accrued to the benefit of the economy at large, and to the public generally as
consumers and as participants in the economic life of the country. But there were
opposing considerations from the social point of view, affecting the general
pubiic in other ways. The railways were an existing capital asset which was being
under-used, and their losses were falling on the public purse. The railways' opera­
tions took less toll of life and limb in accidents than did those on the roads. Fewer
people were affected by their noise and smoke. And goods carried by rail saved
any addition to road congestion. (This saving would operate mainly on the
trunk routes. Rail haulage could do little to help with the growing problems of
lorry transport in towns, since here the ultimate collection or delivery of goods
had usually to be carried out by lorry, even if the trunk leg had been by rail).
9.9 There was thus a possible conflict between the advantage to consignors
individually and the advantage to the public at large. In these circumstances it was
hard for the Licensing Authorities to give the railways much protection. The
arguments of the individual consignor were loud and clear, and could only be
denied a t the cost of inflicting obvious and demonstrable harm to his commercial
interests. N o one spoke for the public at large; and even if anyone had, the
Licensing Authorities would have had to decide between the direct and obvious
hurt to the consignor on the one hand, or the indirect and rather generalised harm
to the public on the other. Moreover, any hurt to the public (in the form of
additional congestion, accidents and railway deficits) would have been the result
not of the grant of any one licence, but of the sum of them all.
9.10 There was the further practical point that so long as a C licence was to be
had on demand, the railways were not likely to get much benefit from increased
restriction on the road haulier. If the consignor thought road transport was
required for his own business, and if he could not obtain it from hire or reward
hauliers, he would use his own vehicles unless this solution was too expensive. In
many situations and for many users this course would have been practicable and
would have been taken.
9.11 The T r a n s p o r t Act of 1953 prescribed that the Licensing Authorities' when
considering applications for A and B licences, should give priority of considera­
tion to the user over the provider of transport. This made it even m o r e difficult
for the railways to sustain objections to the grant of further haulage licences.
Customers generally were prepared to appear in the licensing courts to support
the haulier whose services they wanted. They were the users, and their needs had
to be given first place.
9.12 F o r the last decade at any rate, we are sure that licensing has had no
significant effect in securing for the railways any traffic whose consignor wished
it to go by road.
POSSIBLE A M E N D M E N T O F L I C E N S I N G T O
M O R E T R A F F I C TO R A I L
INFLUENCE
9.13 It is not for us to say whether goods traffic should as a matter of general
transport policy be required or induced to go by rail rather than road. But if a
Government did wish to act to this end could they a d a p t the present licensing
system to achieve that aim more effectively than the licensing system has d o n e
for the last decade?
The Scope for Transfer from Road to Rail
9.14 The first point to consider is what practicable scope there is for a policy
of requiring or inducing goods traffic to go by rail rather than road. In their
report " The Reshaping of British Railways " the British Railways Board s t a t e :
" Such short distance traffic (i.c. freight other than coal on journeys of less than
50 miles) is unlikely to be attracted to rail unless it can be moved in bulk,
directly between rail connected terminals. A very high proportion of this short
distance traffic is made up of [specified flows] and other flows to places where no
rail terminal could be expected to exist ". On this basis, the scope for diverting
road transport of goods to the railways would usually be confined to long
journeys of over 50 miles. However, a b o u t 80 % of heavy lorry journeys are under
50 miles, so that any possible transfer could occur only over less than 2 0 % of the
total number of journeys made.
9.15 One of the difficulties of influencing the distribution of traffic between
road and rail is that in the circumstances of this country, rail is not the best or
often even a practical means of transport for a high proportion of movements of
goods. In his lecture to the Glasgow Junior Chamber of Commerce (submitted
to us as part of the British Railways Board's evidence) the Chairman of the Board
concluded after a most careful study of the whole rail freight position and poten­
tial, that there were perhaps roughly 71,000,000 tons of goods moving annually
by road which could appropriately go by rail—and then only if the nature of
rail service was streamlined, its costs reduced, and its services brought more into
accord with m o d e r n needs. This volume of traffic is less t h a n 6 % of the total
-
2
volume moving by road. In other words, the Railways Board's own estimates
suggest that over 9 4 % of the tonnage of goods on the road should continue to go
that way even after the railway freight s e n ices had been refashioned.
9.16 The relatively small a m o u n t of long distance movement of goods is of
course mainly the outcome of geography. F r o m Land's End to J o h n 0 ' G r o a t s is
nearly a thousand miles. But our main centres of industry and population lie
between two roughly parallel lines, one from Glasgow to Edinburgh, the other
from London to Bristol. These lines are only 400 miles apart. And the high
concentrations of the Midlands, Lancashire and the North-East are con­
venientiy spread in the middle of this belt, and about 100 miles apart. Thus most
of the country is within 100 miles of one or more of o u r great industrial and
commercial areas. In these circumstances it is hardly surprising to find that with
the exception of the more remote parts of the country there are few long hauls
and so many short ones.
The Need to Control Own Account
Work
9.17 Any restriction of road transport would have to apply to both hire or
reward and own account operation. Given the undoubted preference of many
consignors for road transport rather than rail, any action confined to one of these
fields would make the other the primary beneficiary, with rail a poor second. If
the own account operations of the trader or manufacturer were severely cur­
tailed, his response would usually be to employ a road haulier. If the C licensee
were determined to have exclusive control he could do as quite a number of
industrial concerns already do. He could employ a haulier on terms which gave
him virtually exclusive use, and certainly full control, of what the vehicles did.
He could even have them in the livery of his own firm. Thus he would get all the
substance of C licence operation while using hauliers' vehicles. The restriction on
his own freedom would not have caused him to use the railways.
9.18 If on the other hand control were confined to the hire or reward licet as
at present, but applied more stringently, there would be an immediate extra
incentive on consignors of traffic to run their own vehicles. This would not be
practical for all of them because the additional costs of this solution might be
unwarranted—their traffic might be too irregular, or so varied as to need several
kinds of vehicle, or they might not have the capital. To this extent the railways
would be the main beneficiaries. But the history of the development of the C
licensed fleet in recent years shows that for many traders' purposes, road trans­
port suits them so much better than rail that they would surely be prepared to go
to some effort a n d expenditure to retain it for themselves. It must also be
recognised that there will be cases where the use of rail transport is not possible,
for various technical reasons, or is not feasible commercially because of the
additional costs. In such cases a ban on use of road transport would simply
mean that that trade would have to stop—and there would be no benefit to rail.
9.19 if the diversion of traffic to rail is therefore to be significant, either in
terms of benefit to rail or of reduction of road traffic, the means of bringing it
about must bear on both hire or reward and own account road transport. Even
then, what would be lost to road might not all be gained by rail—there might be
some net loss of traffic and trade.
More Stringent
Proof of Need
9.20 The most obvious way of amending the present system so as t o affect the
distribution of traffic between road a n d rail would be to subject applicants for
carriers' licences to a more stringent proof of need. T h e present system certainly
leaves r o o m for such a change. T h e C licence is to all intents a n d purposes to be
had o n demand. Haulage licences go to anyone who can produce a potential
customer who can convince the Licensing Authority that it is not reasonable to
expect him to go elsewhere for his particular service. The difference between rail
and road service usually means that effective objection is confined t o other road
hauliers.
9.21 O n the present basis, therefore, need is relatively easily proved. But the
criteria of decision could be made much harder to meet. Until 1960 the practice
in Belgium, for instance, was to grant licences only where the railways did not
want the traffic i.e. in practice only where it was virtually physically impossible
for the railways to cope (paragraph 4.8). This represents the extreme limit to
enforced use of the railways; between it and o u r own present arrangements there
is a wide range of possible degrees of severity.
9.22 The idea of a control based on a more stringent proof of need than at
present has the surface appeal of seeming rational, and it fits in well with wide­
spread views that some of the present use of road transport is " unnecessary " or
" wasteful ". But we are convinced that applied with the rigour necessary to have
any significant effect, and yet with the reasonableness or equity that we are sure
public opinion would demand, it would be an e n o r m o u s and difficult task to
apply a more stringent test of need. Guidance would have to be given to the
Licensing Authorities; arguments case by case over an extremely wide and
complex field would have to be sifted and heard again as circumstances changed;
and it would hardly be possible to achieve complete fairness as between users of
transport. We d o n o t say that these problems could not be handled; but their
scale leads us to recommend strongly against amendment of the licensing system
as a means of influencing distribution of traffic between road and rail.
Guidance to Licensing
Authorities
9.23 The system as amended would have to leave wide discretion to the
Licensing Authorities. But it would not be appropriate simply to leave the
whole problem to them. They would need guidance not only as to the policy they
should seek to implement but also as to criteria of need. T h e drafting of these
in practical a n d usable form would present formidable difficulties. It is easy to
see words like " reasonable " or " reasonably practicable " quickly creeping in.
In practice they would be of very little help, virtually begging the whole question.
Of course, some indication of the factors which the Licensing Authorities should
take into account in reaching their decisions would no d o u b t be possible. But
again we see the greatest difficulty in framing this in terms general enough to be
of wide application, yet specific enough to secure uniformity and consistency.
Difficulties
in Assessing
Need
9.24 Our work has brought vividly to o u r attention not only the scale of road
transport of goods, but also its complexity. Hardly any two movements of goods
are identical. T h e differences between them can be most relevant to the decision
whether, within the scope of general policy, rail transport would be a proper
alternative. This decision would have to be taken case by case. T h e choice by
a consignor of his form of transport involves the weighing of a host of factors.
Speed, price, reliability, flexibility, tying u p of capital, customs of the trade,
competition—all can have a bearing. One consignor might believe that he needed
to oifer his customers a 24 hour service. Another might say it was necessary for
the driver to be an expert in his commodity. Yet another would argue that use
of rail meant provision of expensive packing. The probing of all these kinds of
argument would either be superficial and hence valueless, or it would have to be
penetrating, and hence protracted—and even then not wholly susceptible of clear
cut decision. It seems clear that given the present degree of preference by con­
signors for road rather than rail, most cases would be argued vigorously, and
decisions which went against the c o n s i g n o r s wishes would be contested to the
hilt.
Justice as Between
Consignors
9.25 There would also be the difficulty that it would be hardly possible to
ensure that the system worked in a way which was manifestly fair as between
would-be consignors by road. One consignor might have to be given a licence
because his geographical position (which might be quite fortuitous) made rail
carriage impracticable. But this licensed use of road transport would confer o n
him other advantages—ability to meet orders at short notice, economy in
packing, or even simply lower freight costs—which might be denied to com­
petitors who were made to use rail. Inevitably some would be given positions of
benefit as the result of circumstances for which they could claim no credit. Such
a system would hardly earn general acceptance, let alone acclaim, and this
attitude would add greatly to the vigour with which each case was fought, and
to its pursuit through all the processes available.
Denial of Licence to Certain Broad
Traffics
9.26 Because we were much impressed with the sheer scale of the task in
trying to work a system of proof of need for transport by road rather than rail,
we looked at the possibility of broader approaches, by a general ban on the use
of lorries for certain traffics, specified perhaps by commodity or by distance.
Such a procedure, if practicable, might greatly reduce the volume of work, if a
system of proof of need were to be run alongside it. Or it might make it possible
to d o without a proof of need system at all.
9.27 The kinds of proposition which we considered were, for example, that
there should be a ban on carriage by road of bulk coal; or perhaps of any bulk
material in more than say 5 ton lots; or that all road transport for distances more
than say 100 miles should be proscribed.
9.28 As with the idea of proof of need, there is again at first sight an attractive
simplicity a b o u t such an approach. But there are hard practical difficulties. These
start from the fact that for some bulk movements and for some journeys however
long, rail is not physically or realistically suitable for the work, so no ban could
be absolute. If the bulk movement is short, there may be no railway line near
enough to offer any reduction in road use (and we assume that no one would want
to suggest compulsory carriage by rail simply in order to give the railways some­
thing to carry). If the journey is long and a rail link is otherwise possible, the load
may be " out of gauge " for the railways. For a further high proportion of
traffics, the unsuitability of rail would be relative, with the extra cost of use of
rail, i n charges, in time, in packaging, in stockholding a n d so on, all being a
matter of degree, but sometimes high indeed. Here the situation would become
one of judgement of individual cases, and all the arguments which tell against a
system with a more stringent proof of need become equally relevant to a system
of banning of some categories of traffic.
9.29 However we looked at the idea of holding back road transport by
licensing, we found no way out of the administrative problems (except by making,
the restriction so slight that it would have no influence on the situation anyway).
We were strengthened in our belief that our fears were well founded by the
experience of the Ministry of War Transport. Restriction of the use of road
transport during the last war necessarily presented problems of deciding how
much additional cost or reduction in service it was " f a i r , " " r e a s o n a b l e " or
" appropriate in terms of policy " to impose on some though not on others.
These difficulties could and did arise even when there was general public goodwill
and understanding of difficulties. We do not rate highly the chance that the
difficulties would be any the less in times of peace, particularly now that the use
of road transport has grown so greatly, to the point where it is a major and
integral part of our economic system.
9.30 We have set out at some length the difficulties of m o r e stringent proof of
need, because on the surface it may appear to be an easy yardstick whereas in
fact the difficulties are very real. We do not go so far as t o say that a system o n
these lines could not be m a d e to work. But we do say t h a t such a system would
only work in an inequitable and unsatisfactory way. It would inevitably produce
decisions which did h a r m to our competitive efficiency in overseas trade, and
which tended to put up costs or reduce standards of service at home. F o r the sake
of clarity we repeat that this view does not mean that we are saying road trans­
p o r t should be given its head, and that no traffic should be influenced to go by
rail. All we are saying is that if this is the desired policy, the licensing of road
transport by proof of need is a very imperfect and costly way of doing it.
An Administrative
or Judicial System
of Control
9.31 Even if it were thought that the difficulties and costs to the economy of
enforcing a more stringent proof of need, though perhaps great, had to be
accepted because of the importance of preferred policy objectives, we are sure
that the application of proof of need would demand a quite different technique
from that used in the present licensing system. While this system carries out an
administrative function, much of its practice is judicial in form and concept. F o r
any material change, due notice has to be given and published. Evidence is heard
and examined, and this process is a commanding factor in the ultimate decision
of the Licensing Authority. The analysis of evidence is largely judicial in form,
with the appearance of witnesses and their cross-examination by Counsel.
Precedents are cited and relied on, and successive cases build up an evermore
closely reasoned and refined volume of law. There are rights of appeal to the
Transport Tribunal, which has the status and some of the procedure of the High
Court. F r o m the Tribunal there is the possibility of further recourse to the Court
of Appeal and even to the House of Lords.
9.32 In evidence we heard much criticism of this procedure and its legal com­
plexity. To the many small firms of which the haulage industry is substantially
composed it must present a formidable set of rules, practice and convention. We
are sure that its legalism has developed despite the intentions of the original
designers of the system, and that they would deplore it, no less than we d o , as out
of accord with the needs of the industry. T h e system, if it were to be amended so
as to give effect to a tighter proof of need, would have to be put o n a quite
different footing. The Licensing Authority would have to have full discretion,
constrained only by any policy guidance given by statute or in accordance with
any directions which tine Minister might give if thus empowered. The Licensing
Authority would have to be entitled and indeed encouraged to take a broad view
of factors which he could take into account, including particularly those wider
aspects of public interest which have conspicuously failed to find any reflection
in the working of the licensing system in the past. Public opinion would doubtless
insist that the dissatisfied should still have access to some machinery for appeals.
A L T E R N A T I V E S T O L I C E N S I N G AS A W A Y O F
THE ROAD/RAIL BALANCE
INFLUENCING
9.33 In suggesting that licensing is not a good way to influence the distribution
of goods traffic between road and rail, we have had in mind other possible means
by which the same general aim of policy could be brought about if that were the
G o v e r n m e n t s wish. In describing these wc should not be taken as advocating the
aim for which they might be used. We seek only to consider them briefly as tools
alternative to licensing. We have considered a q u o t a system; taxation; control of
road transport rates; and the improvement of rail facilities or of the terms on
which they are available to users.
Control of Quantity by
Quota
9.34 If it were decided that there had to be a limit to the quantity of road
transport of goods, it would be possible to fix the number of lorries for which
licences would be issued. This number could be determined from time to time by
ministerial decision, or by means of a formula linked to some economic index,
for example of national production. Such an arrangement would have the
characteristic that an upper limit would be set to the volume of road transport,
at the level selected by the Government.
9.35 An immediate problem would be to decide the basis on which the
licences should be shared out a m o n g the many who would want them. A system
of proof of need would have all the disadvantages to which we have already
referred above, and these would be much worse when there was a finite limit to
the number of licences to be issued. The fortunate recipients of licences would be
the beneficiaries of additional profits secured by the restrictionist policy.
9.36 A n alternative would be for the Government to put the licences on the
market, for sale by public tender. Licences could also be transferable, so that they
could be bought and sold. The advantages of this scheme would be that, com­
bined with a certainty of limitation of goods vehicles to the chosen number,
there would be freedom of choice by users. Price would be the mechanism for
sharing o u t the limited services of the prescribed capacity just as it is for most
other things. Those who felt their need was greatest would have to pay the
market price commanded by the limited capacity. This scheme would raise
revenue for the Exchequer.
9.37 Control on these lines would be flexible in the hands of the Government,
and also flexible in allowing industry and trade freedom of adjustment to the
situation brought a b o u t by the control. Its demerit is that it would inevitably
reflect in higher prices for transport. But this is an inevitable penalty attaching
to any general system of limitation of quantity of supply relative to demand, by
quota as by any other means. H o w serious this effect would be would depend on
the severity of the limitation o n quantity.
Limitation
of Quantity by
Taxation
9.38 Road transport capacity could be limited and controlled by the imposition
of additional taxation on lorries, their fuel and their other requirements. By
raising the costs of road transport, the demand for its services would tend to be
reduced.
9.39 The quantitative effects of taxation would depend on its level and formWe did not enquire into these aspects. If a policy of diverting goods traffic from
the roads were to be implemented, a study of the various forms of taxation and
the likely response of transport users to different levels of taxation would be
imperative. In principle, however, any given degree of diversion could be
achieved by the appropriate taxation.
9.40 As compared with the control of capacity by a quota system of licensing,
control by taxation would have the disadvantage that the precise quantitative
effect of a given level and form of taxation would be somewhat uncertain.
9.41 Ideally, if the sole purpose of the taxation was to alter the distribution of
traffic, the taxes imposed should be so designed as to divert the desired volume
and types of traffics, without falling on those users whose traffics were not to be
diverted; for otherwise the diversion would be achieved not only at the expense
(unavoidably) of the traffic to be diverted, but also at the expense (unnecessarily)
of the remaining traffic. (This effect is c o m m o n to all systems of control which
apply generally and not selectively). It is unlikely that taxes could be so devised
as to be ideally sensitive and selective in their incidence. However, the adoption
of a selective approach in taxation presupposes that it is known which classes of
traffics could more readily be diverted than others or which traffics the authori­
ties wished to have diverted. But if this information were available, direct control
by means of the proscription of such traffics by road would be as promising a
solution as taxation.
Control of Rates
9.42 In many countries the government influences the distribution of goods
traffic as between road and rail (often because of its direct financial interest in the
railways) by way of control of road freight charges. These charges can either be
exactly laid down, or the control can take the form of a prescribed " fork " or
bracket within which the rate actually charged must lie. The relative attraction of
road and rail can then be set or changed at the g o v e r n m e n t s will; and the power
can be used widely or narrowly, and according to commodities, distances, or any
other factors which a rate schedule is capable of taking into account.
9.43 Despite the fairly wide use abroad of this instrument of control, we have
grave doubts as to its practicability, at least in the circumstances in Great
Britain. T o influence traffic towards rail, it would be necessary to lay down a
road freight rate which was above the economic level—i.e. above the rate at
which the service could be provided efficiently by hauliers. Hauliers would find
the prescribed rates to be attractive, and hence they—and new firms attracted by
the rates—would compete for business by one or other form of disguised price
cutting. They would tend to do this unless the total capacity of road transport
were limited. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate such price
cutting.
9.44 There would have to be a system of inspection of both the consignors
and road c a r r i e r s books and other documents to see that the due rate had been
properly charged and paid for each transaction. Such inspection would no doubt
be on a " sample " basis only, but even so the inspection effort would be very
large to have any real effect. (Heavy goods vehicles make roughly 135,000,000*
journeys a year in this country).
9.45 The question would also arise of ensuring that no concealed rebate was
given to the consignor. Access to company records might be sufficient to show
this up if it took the crude form of direct refund. But there would be many less
readily detectable forms of evasion. Special carrier service might be provided
without additional charge. Other services or goods not subject to freight rate
control could be supplied free or at reduced rates. The loopholes seem to us to be
legion.
9.46 An even more serious, indeed insuperable, difficulty would be that the
own account operator could not be brought within a scheme to control road
transport by the prescription of minimum charges. Since he does not pay an
outside firm for his own transport services, no minimum rates could be imposed
or enforced. Freedom to traders and manufacturers to carry their own goods
would undermine any system of rate control designed to limit the volume of
road transport services: the higher the rates were set, the more advantage would
be taken of the option to carry one's own goods. The volume of road traffic might
indeed be increased if operations more effectively performed by hauliers were
increasingly carried out by operators on own account.
9.47 In other countries, control of road freight rates is allied with close
licensing control over both haulage and own account work. Given such
controls, we see no need for rate control as well. Without such controls, rate
control could not in practice be made to influence the distribution of traffic
between road and rail.
Increasing the Attraction
of Rail
Services
9.48 The basic problem of influencing traffic to rail is that of distinguishing
those traffics which could go that way with least disadvantage and then
seeking to influence the balance between the use of road and rail for those
traffics and no others. Given the flexibility in the use of lorries, and the com­
plexity and variety of the uses to which the lorry is put, the approach to the
problem by way of seeking directly to bias the balance against the use of roads
is fraught with difficulties, as we have seen.
9.49 This situation invites attention to the alternative approach not of making
road less attractive to the user, but of making rail more so. T h r o u g h national
ownership of the railways, the Government has considerable scope for infiuen­
cing the situation. The possibilities in this direction seem t o us t o be wide,
particularly bearing in mind the difficulties the railways have had in the post-war
period. Vigorous steps are now being taken to improve the attraction of rail
transport of goods. It seems clear already, from actual experience, that if British
Railways concentrate their efforts on traffics for which rail has advantages to
offer over road, considerable flows of traffic can be attracted to rail. It is clear
that British Railways realise that there is yet a good deal more progress open to
them in this direction.
9.50 It is conceivable, however, that the level of traffic which the railways can
succeed in attracting, when they have m a d e all the improvements open to them,
might yet not be as high as government policy required. In that situation the
difficulties of tackling the road end of the balance are formidable and the costs
of so doing to industry and trade severe. Attention might instead be turned
usefully to the " artificial " enhancement of the attractions of railway service.
The meeting by the Exchequer of current railway deficits is already having this
effect in practice, so no new point of principle would arise. Of course, direct
subsidy would tend to remove a financial discipline valuable in any organisation.
If, however, government policy required that the distribution of traffic between
road and rail should be different from that which follows from the free play of
economic forces, financial help to the railways, perhaps by way of accepting
national responsibilities for some clearly definable element in their costs, would
appear to have fewer disadvantages than the other courses we have discussed
above, and would be well worth further study.
Summary
and
Conclusions
9.51 We find that, at least since the war, the licensing system has not had any
significant effect in influencing traffic from road to raii. We do not see how the
system could be altered, to give effect to such a policy if that were the wish of
government, without an administrative machine of inordinate size, of doubtful
efficiency, and without placing a heavy burden on industry and trade. Other
courses arc open to government. Of these, taxation is an obvious tool, but one
which is difficult to use precisely in practice and which also would raise the costs
of transport users. The improvement of the general efficiency of the railways, for
which there seems to be considerable scope, would have a direct effect on the
distribution of traffic between road and rail and would reduce rather than
increase costs. If this did not carry matters as far as government felt was necessary'
a further measure would be to reduce rail freight charges by accepting certain
rail costs as an Exchequer liability. Both the use of taxation and the improve­
mcnt of the attraction of the railways seem to us greatly to be preferred, as
instruments of policy, to any attempt to use a licensing system to divert goods
traffic from the roads.
Licensing a n d C o n g e s t i o n
Introduction
10.1 The lorry is a frequent target for criticism on the score of holding up
other traffic, both by its slowness when moving and by its obstructive effect
when loading or unloading on the highway. These characteristics can seriously
reduce the efficiency of all road users, or if not their efficiency, their due enjoy­
ment of the highway. In this chapter we examine the extent of the lorry's share
in congestion; whether quantity control by licensing could be used to relieve
congestion; and whether there are other better ways than licensing for tackling
the problem.
The Lorry as a Cause of
Congestion
10.2 The lorry can cause congestion and delay in three distinct circumstances,
to each of which different considerations apply; when moving on trunk routes;
when moving in towns; and when stopped on the road in towns whether to load
or unload or merely to await further work.
10.3 On inter-urban roads, lorries can cause delay to cars, and to other lorries
able to move faster, because of their low power relative to their weight and
because of their size. On a long hill a heavily laden lorry may be incapable of
more than a fraction of the speed of most of the other traffic. When the road is
narrow and winding, and the general level of traffic is above a certain minimum,
the size of a lorry may make it impossible without risk to overtake for a long
time, although its speed may be only half that which cars or some other lorries
could safely travel. This effect grows worse if there are several faster vehicles
each having to wait its turn to overtake. If two or more lorries are bunched
together the obstructive effect can often apply for miles.
10.4 Clearly, no serious problems arise when the road readily allows over­
taking (as e.g. on a motorway o r dual carriageway, or on a smaller road with
good sight lines and with a low volume of traffic). But despite the improvements
already made in recent years to our trunk road network, there are still many
main routes which are overloaded at least for some of the day; and o n such
roads and at such times, the lorry is clearly one of the causes of delay. This is
reflected in the assessment of a lorry as equivalent to 3 passenger cars* when
traffic flows on trunk routes are being measured.
The Lorry on Trunk
Routes
10.5 During the normal working day, lorries are an important part of the
volume of trunk route traffic. In a sample count of vehicles in a recent Ministry
of T r a n s p o r t traffic census for trunk roads lorries accounted for about 2 0 % of
the total traffic in the 24 hours. But most of this lorry traffic was between 8 a.m.
*It is c u s t o m a r y t o m e a s u r e mixed flows of traffic in " passenger car units " (p.c.u.s). A
scale of equivalents, based o n practical experience, rates a heavy lorry as from 1.75 to 3 p.c.u.s.
a c c o r d i n g to circumstances.
and 5 p.m., while quite a large part of the total of cars passing the census points
did so between 5 p.m. and midnight. During the " working day ", lorries over
30 cwt. were something nearer 3 0 % of the total. A n d if the lorry was counted
at its normal trunk road equivalent of 3 p.c.u.s, it accounted for about half the
total volume of traffic during the working day.
10.6 The morning peak of traffic, even on trunk routes, includes the high
level of lorry activity at that time. But by the evening peak many lorries are off
the road for the night, and the lorry component in the evening peak of trunk
route traffic is significantly smaller.
10.7 The long distance lorry on its night trunk run hardly interferes with the
free flow of the relatively small volume of night traffic. This is an important
point, as quite a high proportion of long distance lorry traffic is by night. British
R o a d Services have said t h a t 78 % of their trunk mileage is d o n e during such
h o u r s ; and the Ministry's census figures suggest that though this high proportion
does not apply to all long distance traffic, it is a c o m m o n feature of this kind of
work.
10.8 A particular form of trunk route congestion which attracts much public
attention is that which arises on main roads to resorts at holiday times or during
weekends in summer. This congestion arises almost entirely from the volume of
private car traffic, and the lorry is little involved.
Lorries Under Way in Cities and Towns
10.9 The lorry is less of a hindrance to faster traffic in cities and towns than
on trunk routes because the speed limit in towns reduces the disparity between
vehicles. But the lorry is still a cause of delay, particularly where it has poor
acceleration or where its length has to be taken round a sharp corner. The
smaller obstructive effect of lorries in towns is reflected in their being assessed
at only 2 p.c.u.s for traffic flow purposes compared with the p.c.u. value of 3 on
inter-urban routes.
10.10 T h e proportion of heavy lorries in urban traffic does not seem to differ
from that o n trunk routes. The detailed information of the London Traffic
Survey suggests that lorries account for a b o u t 1 0 % of the vehicles by number in
the morning peak, for 2 5 % during the middle of the day, and less than 1 0 % in
the evening peak. Again the lorry contributes quite markedly to the m o r n i n g
peak but much less t o the evening peak.
10.11 As on trunk routes, the moving lorry in towns is not a n obstruction
until the volume of traffic reaches a certain level in relation to the capacity of
the roads. This level is not usually reached except during the period 8 a.m. to
6 p.m.
Lorries Stopped in Towns
10.12 A n y vehicle stopped at the kerbside may be an obstruction to the free
flow of traffic including that of vehicles of its own kind. The bigger the vehicle
the bigger the obstruction. Most heavy lorries are nearly twice as long and half
as wide again as the ordinary car. They take up a large proportion of available
space in a narrow street.
10.13 Lorries have to load and unload. Many premises, particularly in city
centres, are n o t laid o u t so as to allow this except at the kerbside. Even where
there is off-street space, entry to it may be difficult and slow for a big a n d
awkward vehicle.
10.14 Loading and unloading at many places call for the presence of varying
numbers of workers besides the driver. Most loading or unloading therefore
takes place in normal working hours i.e. when the general level of traffic is at
its highest.
10.15 The responsibility of the lorry for congestion cannot be considered in
isolation. We recognise that the private car at the kerbside is also responsible
for much u r b a n congestion. W e know of n o measurements of tire relative
contributions of cars and lorries to urban congestion through kerbside parking,
whether for long o r short periods. There are more cars than lorries, and they
tend to stay parked longer at a time, often all day. But a van delivering to a
chain of London suburban shops may in total spend half its time stopped in
various High Streets, and often cannot avoid double parking there.
The Effect of Licensing on
Congestion
10.16 It is obvious that the lorry is indeed an i m p o r t a n t clement in certain
kinds of congestion. The Salter Conference saw this and in their rccomend­
ations for a licensing system proposed that road congestion should be one of
the elements in deciding whether carriers' licences should be granted. Their
Report recommended specifically (Paragraph 111 D) that " the licensing
authority shall grant the licence requested by a haulier except where the grant
would be in whole or in part against the public interest on consideration of the
following factors: . . (ii) any actual or prospective congestion or overloading of
the roads ".
10.17 It is not clear how the Conference expected this recommendation to
work in practice. They may well have envisaged that Licensing Authorities
should incline to refuse applications for more lorries, because of the congestion
to which they might add, and that in suitable cases therefore the objections of
the railways should be given particular weight. Their Report throws no light on
the Conference^ ideas as to detail. N o greater light is thrown o n the question by
the terms of the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933, which broadly brought into
effect the Conference^ recommendations as to a licensing system for road trans­
port of goods. T h e Act made no explicit reference to congestion. It seems possible,
though by no m e a n s certain, that it was in mind that the point should be met by
the instruction to the Licensing Authorities to have regard " to the interests of
the public generally " (a phrase now enshrined in Section 174(4) of the R o a d
Traffic Act 1960). Again it was not clear how such a policy would have been put
into effect. It may be that the practical difficulties of designing a licensing system
which would satisfactorily cope with the problem of congestion (then far less
m a r k e d than today) dissuaded the legislators of the time from seeking to pres­
cribe detailed machinery. Behind this there may have been the thought that
licensing would in any case keep transport of goods by road down to an irre­
ducible minimum. There may also have been the thought that lorries were not
the only vehicles contributing to road congestion, and that it would be invidious
to single them out for special attention.
10.18 Whatever the intention of those who originally introduced the licensing
system, the grant or refusal of licences has not depended on any detailed con­
sideration of road congestion. In opposing licence applications, the railways have
from time to time drawn genera! attention to road congestion as a reason why
their services should be preferred. But congestion tends to be local and to
depend on a coincidence of time and place, and the present form of carriers'
licensing system could not readily be made to operate so selectively. It would be
practically impossible to produce evidence that a given licensing decision, usually
involving a fairly small number of lorries, would cause o r add substantially to
congestion at a given time and place. Congestion, at least by lorries, would only
arise from the sum total of licences granted, not from any one of them. More­
over, no provision was made in the Act for anyone who could put forward the
case for the general public interest to be heard at a licensing enquiry.
10.19 At best the net reduction of congestion by licensing at any given place
or time can only have been insignificant. Indeed over the country as a whole, it
is more likely that licensing has led to an increase in the number of goods vehicles
on the roads, for the restrictions which licences impose tend to prevent some
lorries from being more fully used. T o this extent licensing is likely to have
contributed to increased congestion.
Amendment
of Licensing to Reduce
Congestion
(a) By General Injluence on Lorries
10.20 If the present licensing system does not reduce congestion, can it be
amended so as to achieve this a i m ? As we have indicated in the previous para­
graph the removal of licensing restrictions on the use of individual lorries would
tend to reduce the number of vehicles on the road and hence the problem of
congestion. But we do not think the gain here, in terms of reduction of traffic, is
likely to be large. A n alternative to removal of licensing restrictions would be
amendment of the system so as to require a more stringent standard of proof
before " need " was established and a licence granted. We have already discussed
in the previous chapter the disadvantages which we see in such a course. More­
over the practical limitations and difficulties of bringing about the transfer of
goods from road t o rail are so great that road congestion, to which lorries are
not by any means the only contributors, would at best be only slightly affected.
10.21 There would be most scope on the long distance inter-urban traffics,
though even here only a part of lorry traffic would prove in practice to be suitable
for carriage by rail. And bearing in mind the high proportion of lorry journeys
which are short, much of this traffic on trunk routes cannot be o n long distance
work, but must consist of vehicles using the trunk road for part of m o r e or less
local journeys for which rail is no practical substitute. It must also be borne in
mind that a reduction in long-distance road movement of goods m a y even
increase urban congestion, because of the almost inevitable collection and
delivery by road in towns.
10.22 In the towns and cities, where congestion is worst, a very high propor­
tion of goods traffic is on journeys so short that use of rail is impracticable.
Whatever discipline or pressures were applied, the net reduction in congestion
would be insignificant.
(b) By Specific Application
to
Congestion
10.23 Either on trunk routes or in towns, congestion occurs only at certain
places and at certain times. A system of licensing to deal specifically with con­
gestion would therefore have to refer directly to places and times of known
congestion. Licences to operate would have to impose explicit restrictions as to
times and places to which they applied. This is possible in principle but in
practice t o o complex to be contemplated. Enforcement would present enormous
problems. Moreover, to avoid unnecessary restrictions on lorry operators and
users, it would be desirable to adjust the conditions in licences in the light of
changing circumstances bearing on congestion. It would be virtually impossible
to achieve such flexibility without undermining meaningful control.
10.24 Licensing is therefore a crude and ineffective means of dealing with
congestion. Other ways which we have considered of tackling this problem seem
to be more promising. Moreover, reliance on control of congestion through
licensing of lorries is discriminatory in that it is not lorries alone which cause
congestion. We see no reason why lorries, used predominantly in the country's
industry, trade and agriculture, should be the specially chosen subjects of
measures for the control of congestion (except in so far as they alone cause
particular types of congestion calling for specific remedial action).
Other Ways of Reducing
Congestion
10.25 Better roads are the most obvious way of easing congestion, though
in many towns the necessary degree of improvement to eliminate congestion may
be prohibitively expensive. Improved traffic management measures—e.g. one­
way streets, banned right-hand turns, loading and unloading bans, and special
routes for lorries—have proved their worth in making better use of the roads wc
have already. Experience in the last few years in London has shown what can be
achieved by them. Despite an increase in traffic of 10% off peak ( 1 5 % in peak
periods) speeds have gone up by about 2 0 % * , almost wholly as a result of traffic
management measures. We are sure there is still much scope for such measures.
10.26 Adequate provision in future of access to and space for vehicles within
buildings requiring servicing by lorries can make a useful contribution to casing
congestion. We are aware that such provision is often made. But much more
could be done, and this line of approach merits further urgent consideration.
10.27 A prescribed minimum power/weight ratio for lorries (such as might
arise from the " plating " scheme which we understand is being considered by
your Department) would help both in easing inter-urban congestion and in
speeding traffic flow within towns.
10.28 We have also considered whether it would be possible and desirable to
introduce measures designed to spread road goods traffic more evenly over the
24-hour day. We appreciate the difficulties. There would have to be many major
changes of methods and habits, and some of these would be unwelcome to those
directly concerned. But the use of our highways for only a relatively small part
of the 24 hours, and their abuse at some times of high traffic density, suggests at
least one way of dealing with the incoming tide of m o t o r traffic in cities.
* R o a d s in England a n d Wales. R e p o r t by the Minister of T r a n s p o r t for the year ended
31st M a r c h , 1964, page 4 8 . H . M . S . O .
10.29 Finally, the emerging possibility of road-space pricing as an instrumen
of control of congestion seems to offer better promise than the use of a licensing
system.
Summary
and
Conclusions
10.30 Lorries contribute in varying degrees to traffic congestion on both
trunk routes and in towns. Their contribution is significant during the working
day in towns and o n inadequate trunk routes, b u t is not otherwise serious. The
present restrictions imposed o n lorries b y licensing reduce their operating
efficiency and hence tend t o increase their numbers and their contribution to
congestion. The practical scope for transfer of road goods traffic to rail is too
small to offer useful help in reducing road congestion. Licensing designed to
ease congestion, b y proscribing certain times a n d places for the use of the
licensed vehicle, would be impossibly complex.
10.31 Direct methods offer best hope for improvement—better r o a d s ; traffic
management including loading a n d unloading bans a n d special lorry routes;
provision of good lorry access to buildings; higher power/weight ratio; more
use of off-peak h o u r s ; and the pricing of use of road space.
T h e C Licence 11.1 Separate reference to the C vehicle, and proposals for distinctive
treatment of it, figured quite widely in views put to us. This was not perhaps
surprising, in the light of the amount of public discussion of this aspect of
transport in recent years. It might be helpful therefore if we set out separately
our views on the question of the C operator, even though in so doing we must
repeat some of the points we have made earlier. Wherever the facts of the
situation allow, anything we have said already about licensing in relation to
the various possible aims of policy applies equally to own account operation
as t o the hire or reward sector. But some critics have seen the C licensed lorry
as particularly responsible for aspects of the present situation which they
do not like, and they have therefore proposed measures applying only to such
vehicles. It is with these matters that we deal in this chapter.
Criticisms of C
Operation
11.2 Criticism was concerned mainly with the heavy C licensed vehicles (of
which there are 199,000). The 565.000 small vans engaged on retail delivery and
similar services and the 515,000 vans and lorries of between 1 and 3 tons unladen,
also often on larger scale retail delivery and small wholesale distribution,
despite their numbers, attracted no criticism in the context of licensing or of
general transport policy. Indeed, given the kind of work on which they are
engaged, it is hard to see how anything could be d o n e to reduce their numbers
without foregoing the services they provide. The contribution of these smaller
vehicles to matters like road accidents, noise and smoke, and impact on amenity
and congestion, are all closely comparable and indeed hardly to be distinguished
from the impact of the private cars from which they are often derivatives, and
with the functions of which to some extent they overlap. We do not therefore
propose to say any more about them, and in the rest of this chapter any reference
to C licensed vehicles should be understood to apply only to the heavy ones—
i.e. weighing over 3 tons unladen.
11.3 Of the fleet of heavy lorries on C licence, the most usual point m a d e
was that their operations must be " wasteful " because by the nature of a C
licence, limiting the operator to his own goods, his vehicles must run empty
on one half of each journey. The critics also drew attention to the substantial
increase in the number of C licensed vehicles, including particularly the
" h e a v i e s " , in recent years. Much of this growth was attributed to " e m p i r e
building " by the transport departments of the firms concerned. It was alleged
that the boards of these firms often did not know whether their traffic was being
carried economically in their own vehicles, and that it was not in the interest
of the transport department to diminish its own importance by sending its
firnrs goods by haulier or by rail, even where this was more economical for
the firm as a whole. It was also said that the use of C licensed vehicles had
grown because of the opportunities such vehicles offered for advertising the
firm's name or products.
11.4 All these factors were added u p to m a k e the C operator a substantial
villain of the piece. His heavy vehicles were m a d e responsible for much of the
decline of rail traffic, for road congestion, for the growth in numbers of the
obnoxiously noisy and smoking heavy vehicle and so on.
Review of
Criticisms
11.5 If these criticisms were valid, they would constitute a strong indictment.
However, when carefully analysed, their scope and force seem to be severely
limited.
11.6 T h e cost consciousness and careful consideration of transport efficiency
as demonstrated to us by a number of large firms suggests that while " empire
building " may exist, it is not an important factor in the general context of C
licence operation. Similarly, the advertising value of the vehicle is not material
in business decisions a b o u t own account fleets. If there had been such value,
the " plain van " would be exceptional; but it is often to be seen, and does
n o t owe its anonymity always to the demands of its particular trade. T h e only
criticism which did seem to us to be important enough to warrant close study
was that of " waste ", and we have considered this in some detail.
11.7 As to empty running, a recent Ministry of T r a n s p o r t survey* suggests:
All A licence vehicles over 3 tons about 2 4 % empty running
B
41V
J)
"
55
55
55
55
C
55
^
^
/O
l
55
"
0
32 /
55
55
55
5!
/()
55
55
,, A Contract ,,
,,
38 %
11.8 T h u s it can be seen that although the heavy A licensed lorry has less
empty running than the heavy C vehicle, the difference is not large. Certainly,
for all its greater freedom of operation, the A licence vehicle does not usually
m a n a g e to run loaded b o t h ways, while the C lorry, for all its restrictions, does
n o t run empty half the time.
1 1.9 But even if the empty running of A lorries was m u c h less than that of
those under C licence, this would not necessarily be a telling fact against C
licensed operations. O w n account operation is concerned in high degree with the
food and distributive trades and with building a n d civil engineering. In these
trades traffic back to base or even to a destination on the way rarely arises at
the outward end of the journey. F o r example when a m o t o r w a y is being built,
much material goes in, b u t little comes out. On a circular delivery run to a chain
of food stores, n o t only is there little if anything to go back, b u t the lorry must
run progressively more empty as it sets down part of its load at each store in
turn.
11.10 It is another feature of C licensed operation that it includes a high
proportion of specialised vehicles. Tankers, bulk carriers and refrigerated
vehicles are relatively m o r e n u m e r o u s in the C licence category t h a n in the A
a n d B categories. These specialised vehicles by their nature would generally be
engaged in operations which d o not yield return loads.
11.11 T h e degree of " waste " in current C licensed operation is therefore
a good deal less than is popularly supposed. Nevertheless, it is inevitable, from
the fact that C operators are restricted to carrying their own goods, that there
must be some degree of empty or light running which could be reduced but
for the restriction imposed by the present licensing system. Removal of this
restriction could contribute to higher efficiency. The scope for improvement
here is probably not large, but such improvement is certainly worthwhile.
Ways of Reducing the " Waste " of C
Capacity
11.12 There are two ways of tackling the problem—to curtail the number
of C vehicles, or to remove the restriction which reduces their efficiency.
Curtailment
of the Number of C
Vehicles
11.13 The use of C vehicles could be curtailed by three techniques: by
requiring the C operator to prove his need to run his own vehicles; by imposing
a radius limit on his operations; and by levying a special high tax o n him.
11.14 W e are averse to any of these limitations in principle. They would
reduce the effectiveness of the easy availability of own account operation as a
stimulus to good service by professional carriers, whether by road or rail.
They would also take away some of the freedom of the trader or manufacturer
to provide for himself whatever service suits him best, a freedom to which
we know trade and industry attached the highest importance, in our view
quite rightly.
11.15 But even if we found no objection in principle to limitations on the
number of C vehicles, we see disproportionate difficulties and problems in
putting such proposals into practice.
11.16 T h e difficulties of operating a system of " proof of need " in respect
of own account C licences arc the same as those which wc discussed at length
in C h a p t e r 9 on licensing and the railways. Modern road transport operations
are complex and varied, and " n e e d " is in this context a subjective term. We
cannot see a system on these lines working satisfactorily.
11.17 The application of a radius limit to C licensed operations would also
encounter considerable difficulties. There would almost certainly be cases
where exemption would have to be allowed, and difficult problems of decision
would arise in a system based on proof of need. Enforcement would also be
difficult. And a radius limit even as low as 25 miles would only bear on one third
of the tonnage of goods carried by heavy C licensed lorrics* (two thirds of the
total tonnage carried by these vehicles are on journeys of less than 25 miles
already).
11.18 A high tax on C operation would discourage some traders and manu­
facturers. But we are clear from the many circumstances in which C licensed
vehicles are operated that often the user would more readily pay a tax, even if
it were high, than lose the use of what to him is a vital part of his production
o r distribution chain. It would be difficult to design a tax so as to bear only
o n those who were relatively better placed to use an alternative. T h e end result
would be a general increase in the cost of transport for no material gain in
terms of transport policy.
11.19 Even if the difficulties of curtailing the use of C vehicles could be
overcome, the consequent gains would nevertheless be small for other reasons.
If the former C operator still had the option of using a haulier it would be im­
possible to prevent him from arranging with the haulier to have the exclusive
use of the haulier's lorry or lorries. In other words, he would operate the
vehicles exactly as before.
11.20 It is difficult to arrive at any realistic estimate of the savings in heavy
road traffic, if any, that might be achieved by diverting C licence work to
hauliers. It is interesting however to consider the effects if heavy C licence
vehicles did as little empty running as present-day A licence vehicles. In 1962
heavy lorries under C licence ran about 3,000 million miles.* of which about
one third was empty mileage. If this could have been reduced to one quarter
(the A licence figure), there would have been a saving of about 330 million
vehicles miles.f As the vehicles concerned were heavy vehicles, this would have
been equivalent (under the normal traffic measurement convention) to 1
thousand million passenger car unit/miles. This hypothetical reduction, large
as it sounds, would have been less than 1 % of the estimated total traffic on
our roads in 1962. It must be seen against an increase in total traffic at present
running at about 5% per annum.
11.21 It is also possible to save vehicle miles by securing that part-loaded
vehicles are more fuHv loaded. What information we have tends to indicate that
C licence vehicles run with only small part-loads more often than d o hauliers"
vehicles. Estimation of possible savings in this field is even more difficult than
in that of empty running. As mentioned in Chapter 3, how much a vehicle can
carry is in practice limited either by the weight or bulk of its load or by other
characteristics such as how far the load can be stacked. There is therefore no
easy way of defining and measuring the degree to which any vehicle is loaded.
And it is characteristic of many C licence journeys that they entail the pro­
gressivc delivery of loads to (or their progressive collection from) several points
on a circular route. On such journeys the vehicle can hardly be full all the time.
While we c a n n o t therefore measure the scope for saving vehicle miles by loading
C vehicles more fully, it seems unlikely that the scale of practical advantage can
be large.
11.22 T h e railways would be scant beneficiaries of any pressure on C operators
so long as road haulage services were available as an alternative. In other words,
the first choice of the C operator would be a haulier to provide his services,
rather than the railways. But if this option were denied him. and he were forced
to use rail, it must be borne in mind that there are severe practical limits to
how far the railways can or would wish to offer a satisfactory substitute service.
Their recognised forte is in the field of long distance bulk movement. A very
high proportion of heavy C licensed work is short distance, often not in b u l k ;
and for this kind of work the railways are fundamentally unsuited or not even
a practical means of transport.
*Ministry of T r a n s p o r t Statistical P a p e r N o . 2—Survey of R o a d G o o d s T r a n s p o r t , 1962,
Final Results, Part I, T a b l e 18. Page 40, H M S O ,
t S e e A p p e n d i x B (i). T a b l e (x).
9
Removal of Present Restrict ions on C
Operators
11.23 We think that the right way to tackle any reduction of efficiency imposed
o n C operators by the present licensing system is to free them from restriction
as to what they may carry. In practice, it would be virtually impossible to deny
them this freedom if entry into the hire or reward sector of the industry were
made unrestricted. For otherwise the C operator could avoid any special
limitations placed on him, by the simple process of securing the setting up of a
haulage company for the sole purpose of carrying out his road transport work.
There would ultimately be no way of stopping this kind of arrangement. It
appears to us that the right course is not only to a b a n d o n restriction of entry
into the hire or reward field but also at the same time to remove the restriction
at present imposed on the C operator that he may only carry his own goods.
Summary
and
Conclusions
11.24 Criticism of C licensed operation of heavy vehicles has been much
exaggerated. An element of " waste " is inherent in the restrictions which a r e
imposed upon this kind of operation by the licensing system. We do not think
that this should be dealt with by further restriction of C licensed operation,
which is liable in the end only to substitute one inefficiency for another, b u t
rather by removing the existing restrictions. Indeed, such removal is in practice
inherent in any freeing of the haulage sector of the industry from restrictions
on entry.
9
Track C o s t s The General Relevance of Track Costs to Licensing
12.1 We had much evidence on the question of comparative track costs
by road and rail, and there seemed to be hope in some quarters that we would
arbitrate on this highly controversial and long standing problem. We were for
some time uncertain how far it came within our remit, and we gave careful
consideration to this. We finally decided that while the question was of some
relevance to us, in so far as it bore on the taxation or subsidisation of road
haulage, it was not essential to the discharge of our duty to try to pursue it to
finality. N o r was it necessary for us to go into the question of the relative costs
of carrying traffic by road or rail (nor for that matter by sea or air).
12.2 T h e terms on which road transport services are offered are influenced
by how much road users, or particular classes of them, have to pay for the use
of the roads. If they do not have to pay adequately for the use of roads, through
taxation or otherwise, their services could and possibly would be supplied at
less than the full cost of providing them. Any subsidy, whether hidden or overt,
would lead to a n increase in the use of road transport; and such an increase
would not be justified economically so long as other forms of transport had to
price their competing services on the basis of their costs including their track
costs. Thus the incidence of road costs affects the economic use of resources
in all forms of transport. It is conceivable that a licensing system might be
used to reduce the number of lorries so as to counteract the effect of any subsidy
to lorries which may be present as a result of the public provision of roads.
12.3 The railways arc in principle required to pay directly for all the costs
of providing and maintaining the lines on which their trains run, and of signal­
ling, lighting and policing their lines; and to adjust their charges accordingly.
(We are aware, however, that for some years the railways have in fact been
operating at a loss, which means that the payments made to the railways by
rail users have been insufficient to cover total costs of operation, including
track costs. In this sense, some rail users have been " subsidised " ) .
12.4 Road haulage operators do not pay directly for the use of the roads on
which their vehicles run. With trivial exceptions they are allowed " free " use
of the roads for running and parking; and public authorities meet the cost
of policing, traffic control and lighting. But this is of course only part of the
account. In the tax on fuel and the annual excise duty on vehicles used on public
roads, road users pay substantial taxes the equivalent of which are not paid
by the railways. The taxes on road users no longer take the implied form of
payment for the use of roads, but are part of general Exchequer receipts. The
payment of these taxes cannot however be ignored in considering the cost of
the facilities provided by public authorities.
12.5 It is no part of our task to look into the costs of running a railway.
The British Railways Board in their evidence provided us with detailed figures,
but we are in no position to comment upon these. N o r do we think it is for
us to do so. It is also n o part of our terms of reference to say whether the
money spent on the road system should be recouped through taxation or to
say how road costs should be shared between different classes of vehicles.
The Salter Conference recommended the adoption of detailed schemes of
road vehicle taxation. But the Conference^ terms of reference, unlike our
own, included " the incidence of highway costs in relation to the contributions
of the different classes of mechanically propelled vehicles ". We decided we
were only required to consider whether a licensing system could serve to re­
adjust the balance between road and rail if it were to b e shown both thai this
was being upset because lorries were paying in taxes less than their share of
the cost of providing a n d maintaining the roads, and also that this under­
payment could not otherwise be corrected.
Evidence from the British Railways
Board
12.6 In evidence the British Railways Board said that they were not seeking
piotection through licensing of road goods transport. But the best distribution
of traffic between road and rait could only be m a d e if road users were paying
their fair share of the costs of the road system. In their " Report on the Re­
shaping of British Railways " the Board had argued that the railways were
inherently unsuitable for many of the tasks which they had performed in the
past. The system was being reorganised in order to enable them to compete
more effectively for those traffics for which they had inherent advantages. In
practice competition between road and rail was primarily restricted to trunk
routes.
12.7 T h e Board did not argue that road users as a whole were paying less
than the cost of providing the road system. They had confined their attention
to the kind of road and rail operations in the goods field which they considered
to be in serious competition with each other. Their " Study of the Relative
True Cost of Rail and Road Freight Transport over T r u n k Routes " first
estimated the costs of building a new motorway or trunk road as compared
with that of building a new railway. Then they added to these costs the
respective costs of operating heavy goods vehicles or the costs of operating
either traditional forms of railway freight transport or the proposed liner
trains. The Board concluded that on the assumption of existing rates of usage
of either road or rail track, the cost of the entire system, per capacity ton mile,
was twice as high for road as for rail. They also concluded that vehicles of
10 or 16 tons capacity running on new motorways or dual carriageway trunk
roads were paying in fuel tax and excise duties between one-third and one­
half of the share of road costs which the Board's study attributed to them.
If this were true road operators engaged in trunk haulage were in effect being
heavily subsidised to the detriment of the railways.
Evidence from the Ministry
of
Transport
12.8 We also received evidence from your Department about the distribution
of road costs between different classes of vehicles. This study covered the road
system as a whole and sought to show the limits between which a n equitable
allocation of road costs could be made to different classes of vehicle. It assessed
the capital cost of the road system both on the basis of actual expenditure in
a given year (1962) and alternatively as the annual interest payments on the
capital sunk in the road system. Other costs (maintenance, cleansing and snow
clearing, lighting, policing, administration and the cost of accidents not covered
by insurance) were divided by the Department between different vehicle classes
according to a number of different methods (by vehicle miles, passenger car
unit miles, laden ton miles, etc.) as appropriate to each kind of expenditure,
giving upper and lower limits in the calculations where necessary.
12.9 We compared the results of these calculations with estimates of the
taxes paid by various classes of vehicles. The comparison shewed that each class
of vehicle was paying more in taxes than its share of road costs, b u t that the
extra payment by heavier lorries was much less than that of lighter vehicles.
T h e Ministry agreed that there were other methods of making the calculations
which might yield different answers.
Evidence from Road
Interests
12.10 We also received evidence on track costs from the British Road
Federation, the Road Haulage Association, the T r a n s p o r t Holding C o m p a n y
and the Traders Road Transport Association. M e m o r a n d a put to us by these
bodies were directed mainly at criticising the methods used by the British
Railways Board in arriving at their conclusions that heavy vehicles were not
paying enough for the use of the r o a d s :
(i) it was said to be unfair to base rates of vehicle taxation on only a
limited p a r t of the road network. Even in the case of trunk routes it
was unrealistic to assume that all trunk roads were new roads built to
modern standards. Since vehicle taxation could not be varied according
to the use m a d e of different kinds of roads the only reasonable basis
on which to assess taxation was the cost of the road system as a whole;
(ii) m u c h of the high costs attributed to heavy vehicles by the Board resulted
from the assumption that the greater part of the cost of building
m o d e r n roads was due to a need to cater for heavy vehicles. The Board
had estimated that the cost of a motorway built for private cars only
would be some £200,000 per mile as against the cost of a full standard
motorway of £700,000 per mile. Studies by your D e p a r t m e n t s engineers
and by a firm of consulting engineers indicated that in fact not m o r e
than 2 0 % of the cost of motorways could be saved by building for
light vehicles only;
(iii) the Board had misapplied the results of tests carried out by the American
Association of State Highway Officials into wear and tear on roads,
to charge too high a p r o p o r t i o n of maintenance cost to heavy vehicles;
(iv) the Board had failed to allow for increasing traffic which would spread
the cost of the new roads over a larger number of vehicles and so reduce
the cost per vehicle.
12.11 In general the m e m o r a n d a from road interests were content to rely
o n the cost allocation suggested by your Department in its evidence to us,
although they thought that in some respects it was unfairly weighted against
heavy lorries. Only the Transport Holding C o m p a n y had produced independent
estimates. They compared several methods of calculating road costs and did
separate calculations on trunk, classified and unclassified roads. In every case
they found that lorries paid more than enough in tax to cover their road costs.
12.12 T h e Road Haulage Association and the Transport Holding C o m p a n y
went on t o argue that there was no " c o r r e c t " allocation of road costs, that any
allocation must be to some extent arbitrary and would depend upon the objectives
which the Government were trying to pursue. They insisted, however, that the
track costs argument could not be used to justify levying extra taxation on
heavy goods vehicles.
Evidence from the Road Research
Laboratory
12.13 All the track cost studies mentioned above were founded on the notion
of determining the total cost of the provision, maintenance and control of the
road system (or part of it) and of allocating this total among the various categories
of users. The Road Research Laboratory used a different approach. T h e calcula­
tions in their study did not purport to estimate the charges which would have
to be levied on road users to recover the cost of the road system. Instead, the
additional costs caused by a small increase in the volume of traffic were csti­
mated. T w o alternative types of estimate were made. In the first it was assumed
that there was no additional road capacity, so that the postulated increase in
traffic imposed additional costs on all road users by slowing down traffic flows,
and also caused an increase in road maintenance costs due to the more rapid
wear of road surfaces. In the second type of estimate, it was assumed that the
speed of traffic flows was maintained unchanged by adding to the road capacity
(by new building) to accommodate the increase in traffic. Here the additional
costs t o o k the form of the outlays on the additions to the road system, expressed
on an annual basis. Estimates of these costs for rural roads were made on each
of these two bases, and for urban roads on the first method only. The costs
were estimated separately for an increase in heavy vehicle traffic and in light
vehicle traffic, the dividing line being a vehicle of \ \ tons.
12.14 The general conclusions were that on rural roads the present taxes
on heavy vehicles exceeded the (marginal) costs of using the roads as defined
and estimated in the study. In urban areas, on the other hand, the taxes paid were
considerably lower than the estimated costs, the deficiency reflecting the high
degree of road congestion already present in many urban areas, and the more
pronounced slowing-down of traffic caused by a small addition to traffic.
Review of Track Cost
Studies
12.15 We felt that there were weaknesses in the case presented by the British
Railways Board. T h e estimates made by highway engineers convinced us,
in the absence of informed comment to the contrary, that the Board had over­
estimated the savings on the construction of roads for light vehicles only.
Moreover, their argument depended quite heavily on their assumption that a
new road or railway would be used at the present level of goods traffic between
the places connected by the route. This is arbitrary and bears no necessary
relation to capacity or to what may happen in future. We also had some d o u b t s
on the appropriateness of the use of p.c.u. values in some of the Board's
estimates.
the capital cost of the road system both on the basis of actual expenditure in
a given year (1962) and alternatively as the annual interest payments on the
capital sunk in the road system. Other costs (maintenance, cleansing and snow
clearing, lighting, policing, administration and the cost of accidents not covered
by insurance) were divided by the Department between different vehicle classes
according to a n u m b e r of different methods (by vehicle miles, passenger car
unit miles, laden ton miles, etc.) as appropriate to each kind of expenditure,
giving upper and lower limits in the calculations where necessary.
12.9 We compared the results of these calculations with estimates of the
taxes paid by various classes of vehicles. The comparison showed that each class
of vehicle was paying more in taxes than its share of road costs, b u t that the
extra payment by heavier lorries was much less than that of lighter vehicles.
The Ministry agreed that there were other methods of making the calculations
which might yield different answers.
Evidence from Road
Interests
12.10 We also received evidence on track costs from the British Road
Federation, the Road Haulage Association, the Transport Holding C o m p a n y
and the Traders Road Transport Association. M e m o r a n d a put to us by these
bodies were directed mainly at criticising the methods used by the British
Railways Board in arriving at their conclusions that heavy vehicles were not
paying enough for the use of the r o a d s :
(i) it was said to be unfair to base rates of vehicle taxation on only a
limited part of the road network. Even in the case of trunk routes it
was unrealistic to assume that all trunk roads were new roads built to
modern standards. Since vehicle taxation could not be varied according
to the use m a d e of different kinds of roads the only reasonable basis
on which to assess taxation was the cost of the road system as a whole;
(ii) much of the high costs attributed to heavy vehicles by the Board resulted
from the assumption that the greater part of the cost of building
modern roads was due to a need to cater for heavy vehicles. The Board
had estimated that the cost of a motorway built for private cars only
would be some £200,000 per mile as against the cost of a full standard
motorway of £700,000 per mile. Studies by your D e p a r t m e n t ^ engineers
and by a firm of consulting engineers indicated that in fact not more
than 20 % of the cost of motorways could be saved by building for
light vehicles only;
(iii) the Board had misapplied the results of tests carried out by the American
Association of State Highway Officials into wear and tear o n roads,
to charge t o o high a proportion of maintenance cost to heavy vehicles;
(iv) the Board had failed to allow for increasing traffic which would spread
the cost of the new roads over a larger number of vehicles and so reduce
the cost per vehicle.
12.11 In general the m e m o r a n d a from road interests were content to rely
o n the cost allocation suggested by your Department in its evidence to us,
although they thought that in some respects it was unfairly weighted against
heavy lorries. Only the Transport Holding C o m p a n y had produced independent
estimates. They compared several methods of calculating road costs and did
separate calculations on trunk, classified and unclassified roads. In every case
they found that lorries paid more than enough in tax to cover their road costs.
12.12 The Road Haulage Association and the Transport Holding Company­
went o n to argue that there was no " correct " allocation of road costs, that any
allocation must be to some extent arbitrary and would depend upon the objectives
which the Government were trying to pursue. They insisted, however, that the
track costs argument could not be used to justify levying extra taxation on
heavy goods vehicles.
Evidence from the Road Research
Laboratory
12.13 All the track cost studies mentioned above were founded on the notion
of determining the total cost of the provision, maintenance and control of the
road system (or part of it) and of allocating this total among the various categories
of users. The Road Research Laboratory used a different approach. The calcula­
tions in their study did not purport to estimate the charges which would have
to be levied on road users to recover the cost of the road system. Instead, the
additional costs caused by a small increase in the volume of traffic were csti­
mated. Two alternative types of estimate were made. In the first it was assumed
that there was no additional road capacity, so that the postulated increase in
traffic imposed additional costs on all road users by slowing d o w n traffic flows,
and also caused an increase in road maintenance costs due to the more rapid
wear of road surfaces. In the second type of estimate, it was assumed that the
speed of traffic flows was maintained unchanged by adding to the road capacity
(by new building) to accommodate the increase in traffic. Here the additional
costs took the form of the outlays on the additions to the road system, expressed
on an annual basis. Estimates of these costs for rural roads were made on each
of these two bases, and for urban roads on the first method only. T h e costs
were estimated separately for an increase in heavy vehicle traffic and in light
vehicle traffic, the dividing line being a vehicle of \ \ tons.
12.14 T h e general conclusions were that on rural roads the present tuxes
on heavy vehicles exceeded the (marginal) costs of using the roads as defined
and estimated in the study. In urban areas, on the other hand, the taxes paid were
considerably lower than the estimated costs, the deficiency reflecting the high
degree of road congestion already present in many urban areas, and the more
pronounced slowing-down of traffic caused by a small addition to traffic.
Review of Track Cost
Studies
12.15 We felt that there were weaknesses in the case presented by the British
Railways Board. The estimates made by highway engineers convinced us,
in the absence of informed comment to the contrary, that the Board had over­
estimated the savings on the construction of roads for light vehicles only.
Moreover, their argument depended quite heavily on their assumption that a
new road or railway would be used at the present level of goods traffic between
the places connected by the route. This is arbitrary and bears no necessary
relation to capacity or to what may happen in future. We also had some doubts
o n the appropriateness of the use of p.c.u. values in some of the Board's
estimates.
12.16 All but the R o a d Research Laboratory's a p p r o a c h to the allocation
of track costs start from analysing w h a t would happen if a public corporation
was responsible for running the road system and for paying its way. They seek
t o establish the items which ought to appear in the accounts of such a corpora­
tion and to work out what charges ought to be levied on different users of the
system. But a public corporation in this position would have no difficulty in
thinking of numerous different tariff structures to raise the required revenue.
There are some road costs which can be directly attributed to particular types
of vehicle. These are costs which would be avoided if there were no vehicles of
that type on the roads. It is reasonable to assume that these costs would be
recouped directly from those users. But many other costs are c o m m o n to all
types of user. These costs would have to be incurred whether or not a particular
class of road user used the roads. There does not seem to be any obvious reason
why one method of raising revenue to cover these costs should be preferred to
another except a subjective judgement as to what seems equitable or expedient
in the circumstances.
12.17 It is not for us to say whether charges for the use of roads should be
based on the notion of costs used in the Road Research Laboratory's study;
nor is it for us to assess the reliability of the estimates presented in the study.
(We noted that the findings were presented to us with frequent references to
the wide margins of error in the estimates and the inadequacy of the basic
data).
12.18 More generally, the approach adopted by the Laboratory is in our
view more appropriate to the question of the control or reduction of congestion
on the roads than to the question which faces us—competition between road
and rail as it may be affected by payment by users for the tracks they use.
Social Costs and
Benefits
12.19 A further difficulty in seeking to pursue the track costs argument is
that it almost inevitably has to leave out a number of factors. Mention was m a d e
in evidence to us of social costs which should come into the reckoning; and
some witnesses pointed to the need for recognising the social benefits of road
transport. We do not know, however, on what basis allowance should be made
for the various items of social costs and social benefits. Methods for calculating
them are in their infancy, and necessarily include major elements of estimation,
about which there is wide scope for the exercise of judgement and for differences
of opinion. It seems to us that any adjustment to be made for the social costs
and benefits of the two modes of transport is ultimately a matter for government
decision. T h e importance of this decision needs no emphasis from us in view
of its effects on the public generally and on users of transport services, and hence
on the economy as a whole.
How Far Lorries Pay their Track
Costs
12.20 T h e British Railways Board sought to show that heavy lorries engaged
in trunk haulage were paying substantially less t h a n their true road costs.
O t h e r interests suggested that road users in general, including heavy lorries,
were paying far more than they should. The R o a d Research Laboratory, by
analysing the rural and urban situations separately, provide partial support
for b o t h schools of thought. But the L a b o r a t o r y ^ estimates do not support
the view that long-distance road haulage is " subsidised " by way of road costs
in its competition with rail. F o r long distance movements, the area in which
road and rail are mainly in competition, most of the road hauls are on " rural "
roads where taxation was calculated by the Laboratory to be in excess of costs.
On the other hand, on urban roads where heavy lorries were calculated by the
Laboratory to pay less in tax than their imposed costs, road transport cannot
in practice be replaced by rail. The implicit subsidisation (according to the
study) of road haulage on urban roads cannot therefore be significant for
competition between road and rail.
12.21 The only certain conclusion we can draw from all the evidence we
have received is that no method of assessing road costs secures general accept­
ance, and we are not in a position to arbitrate finally upon the merits of different
approaches to this problem.Moreover, nothing in the evidence put to us gives
us reason to think that there is any hope, at this stage of thought or knowledge,
of arriving at such a solution. This is no new problem. We recall the views of
the Royal Commission on Transport when it said in its Report:
" We now approach the most difficult subject of the relationship between
highway expenditure and the taxation of mechanically propelled vehicles.
A considerable volume of evidence has been directed to this matter,
and we confess that, in spite of the great a m o u n t of thought we have given
to it, we have been unable to reach a conclusion which we could confidently
put forward as demonstratively and mathematically sound. Certain facts
and statistics are available which may be used in a variety of ways according
to the ingenuity of the person using them and the conclusion which he
hopes to prove ".*
Licensing and Track
Costs
12.22 Having said that we doubt whether a final answer is yet possible and
having pointed to the intractable problems of attributing c o m m o n costs to
particular classes of user, we obviously cannot say that the present a m o u n t and
balance of taxation are right. But we are not convinced by the evidence before
us that the present rates of taxation of heavy lorries are low relative to the track
costs which can be properly attributed to them and hence that a restriction
by licensing of the number of lorries would be justified on these grounds to
secure the most economic use of transport resources. Moreover, we believe
that if there were a subsidy element and rates were low relative to such costs,
Exchequer action could redress the balance if this were thought wise. T h e
Government could adjust the rates and bases of taxation of road users in order
to ensure t h a t each category paid its required contribution towards the cost
of the system. This would be a much more realistic and logical approach than
any attempt to try to achieve the same ultimate effect by licensing.
12.23 Finally, nothing we have said should be taken to mean that the Govern­
ment should not raise revenue from any mode of transport in excess of public
expenditure directed to it. N o r are we suggesting that increased taxation of
road transport should not b e imposed in order to secure a transfer of traffic
from road to rail, if that be the deliberate aim of government policy. But in so
* Royal C o m m i s s i o n ^ Final Report, p a r a g r a p h 224.
saying, we should m a k e it clear that we are not advocating such a policy;
and we would in a n y case think it vital that a detailed study of the probable
effects of such action, not only o n the interests of road users but m o r e generally
on the economy as a whole should have been m a d e before any such course
were embarked u p o n .
Summary and
Conclusions
12.24 The question of track costs has a narrow but important relevance to
our work. N o n e of the approaches put to us seemed to be a final answer to this
long standing and vexing problem. We were satisfied that the present situation
did n o t of itself m a k e it essential to continue a system of quantity control of
lorries t h r o u g h licensing.
P r o p o s a l s m a d e t o the C o m m i t t e e for the R e f o r m o f the L i c e n s i n g S y s t e m within its Present B r o a d F r a m e w o r k 13.1 Many of the m e m o r a n d a put to us either argued the case for some kind
of quantity control by licensing o r were based on the assumption that such a
system of control would be continued. These m e m o r a n d a were devoted primarily
to criticism of detailed aspects of the present system and t o advocacy of p r o ­
posals for its amendment within its existing framework.
13.2 We have concluded, however, that the present system of licensing has
no merit in relation to any of the aims of transport policy and has certain
positive disadvantages. We see no practical way of amending the system to
repair these serious defects. There is therefore no need for us to consider any of
the proposals premised on the continuance of the system. However, if we did
not note some of these proposals, we should fail to show h o w the present system
appeared to many who are affected by it, and their views would go unrecorded.
We therefore set out briefly the main points (we cannot list them all, for some
concerned quite minor and esoteric matters); and in paragraphs 13.37 and 13.38
we add a few general observations.
Control of A Licensed
Hauliers
13.3 It was suggested that the present freedom of A licensed hauliers to carry
return loads without specific regard to their " normal user " (see paragraph
2.50) undermined the power of the Licensing Authorities to control capacity
and should be removed.
1
13.4 It was suggested also that the doctrine o f " normal user' was uncertain
in operation and difficult of enforcement. There was no universal agreement, it
was said, a m o n g Licensing Authorities about the extent to which a haulier
should be free to depart from the intentions expressed in his application for his
licence, before being regarded as in breach of his " normal user ". Statements
of intention were drafted by applicants themselves or by their advisers and might
be amended orally during the course of inquiries. Often therefore they were
open to divergent interpretations. Licensing Authorities could n o t prosecute the
holder of an A licence who infringed his " normal user " as they could the
holder of a B licence who broke a condition of his licence.
13.5 It was strongly argued on the other hand that a b o n a fide public haulier
once licensed should be free to carry goods with the minimum of restriction and
that the idea of " normal user " had been unjustifiably grafted on to a system
originally designed to leave A licensed hauliers free in this way.
B
Licences
13.6 It was widely represented to us that the B licence had developed in a way
not originally intended. It was said that the licence was designed to meet the
needs of those traders whose own account operations could be made more
efficient by a limited a m o u n t of carrying for hire or reward. " Unfair " competi­
tion with the public haulage industry was to be prevented by attaching restric­
tive conditions to the licence. But because existing carriers, particularly the
railways, objected less strenuously to applications for B licences (where their
interests could be protected by the imposition of suitable conditions) they were
widely resorted to by professional hauliers. In particular, newcomers to the
industry found it easier to obtain B licences with restrictive conditions than A
licences. Many professional hauliers now therefore operate under these licences.
This state of affairs was criticised both because it was said to have led to undue
restriction of professional hauliers under B licences and because it had allowed
undue proliferation of small haulage firms.
13.7 A s against the argument that B licensed hauliers were already unduly
restricted, it was suggested that a right of objection and appeal should be given
against an application to vary the classes of goods permitted by the conditions
of a B licence. ( N o such right at present exists although the Act allows objection
against changes in geographical limits laid down in the conditions).
Contract A
Licences
13.8 Various proposals were made for the abolition of Contract A licences.
It was put forward as an objection to their existence that they provided a
relatively easy method of entry to professional haulage. The C o u r t of Appeal
decided in the Arnold Transport case* that evidence of traffic from one customer
alone could be sufficient to justify the grant of a full A licence. A haulier em­
ployed under a Contract A licence could sometimes bring evidence that his
customers required h i m to cheapen his services by accepting back loads from
other customers and that if he did not do so he would lose his contract. This
under the conventions of the system made it difficult for the Licensing Authority
to refuse to grant an A licence.
13.9 It was argued also that Contract A licences were unnecessary because
traders could get the service they required by negotiating a suitable contract
with an existing A licensed haulier. Alternatively the Contract A licence should
be treated as a form of B licence limited to carriage for one customer alone. If
then the holder established that it was desirable for him to carry return loads for
others he could be granted a variation of conditions without being admitted to
the greater freedom of a full A licence.
Lack of Information for Licensing
Authorities
13.10 Several witnesses argued that under the system as it stood Licensing
Authorities lacked adequate information on which to base their decisions. When
the Licensing Authority had to decide an application for increased capacity, he
usually had evidence of a c u s t o m e r s need for the haulier's services and evidence
" A r n o l d T r a n s p o r t (Rochester) Ltd. v British T r a n s p o r t C o m m i s s i o n a n d O t h e r s [1961]
3 A l 1 E . R . 495
brought by the objectors that there was already sufficient capacity to meet the
alleged demand. It was said that many customers are extremely reluctant to give
evidence which might involve disclosing commercial information of value to
their competitor, or to submit to the ordeal of cross-examination. On the other
hand, others might be willing to support almost any application so that they
could benefit from sharper competition. Existing hauliers might not wish to take
the trouble to object or might have agreements with other hauliers that they
would not object to each other's applications. In the past the practice of the rail­
ways to object almost automatically to all applications for new A licences had
ensured that evidence of some at least of the existing facilities had generally been
available to Licensing Authorities. But this might not always be the case in the
future. Licensing Authorities were not bound to grant an application simply
because there were no objections to it, and they could draw o n their own know­
ledge of the facts of the situation. But it was very difficult for them to act without
evidence of the extent of haulage facilities in their district and in the districts other
than their own to which the vehicles would travel. It is relevant to mention here
that it was suggested that Licensing Authorities should be given the powers,
which at present they lack, to subpoena witnesses and administer oaths.*
13.11 A number of witnesses suggested that there was another weakness in
the machinery. An application for a new licence has to be made to the Licensing
Authority of the Traffic Area in which the applicant has his operating centre.
Evidence of supply and demand would be very largely confined to that area but
traffic might be drawn from other areas too.
Suggestions for National and Local
Licences
13.12 It was suggested that to meet these and other difficulties there should
be two main classes of licence for public hauliers:
(a) a national licence—giving no limit on the range of operation, and
(b) a local licence—by which the haulier would be limited to (say) a fifty
mile radius of operation.
Each of these two classes would be subdivided into licences which enabled
hauliers to operate freely without restriction, and licences to which various
types of conditions could be attached by the Licensing Authorities. Applications
for national licences would be considered by a National Licensing Authority
and applications for local licences by Local Licensing Authorities. T h e Licensing
Authorities should attach less importance than at present to the evidence of
customers and objectors. They should attach primary importance to economic
statistics such as indices of industrial production, and in the case of existing
hauliers applying for increased capacity to the extent to which their fleets are
already fully utilised.
Legalistic Administration
of the
System
13.13 We received a considerable a m o u n t of evidence to the effect that the
system had become unnecessarily hampering to trade and industry, and to
hauliers, because of a too legalistic approach to its administration. It was said
*See both the R e p o r t of the C o m m i t t e e o n the Licensing of R o a d Passenger Services,
H M S O., 1953 p a r a g r a p h 89 a n d the R e p o r t of the C o m m i t t e e o n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e T r i b u n a l s
a n d Enquiries, C m n d 218, H M S O., 1957 p a r a g r a p h 92 for views relevant t o this suggestion.
that the Transport Tribunal in particular relied too heavily upon precedent and
technical points of law in reaching its decisions. It was suggested that the thickets
of case law which had grown up as a result of Tribunal decisions over the years
were impenetrable by the average layman and that sometimes even the lawyers
expert in licensing matters got lost in them. Applicants and objectors were
bound to take legal advice in preparing their cases and generally they found it
necessary to be legally represented in hearings before the Licensing Authority.
This led to multiplication of further points of law.
13.14 A few witnesses suggested that an over-elaborate structure of precedents
had been built up because the criteria laid down in the Act for the guidance of
Licensing Authorities were too broadly drawn. F o r this and for general reasons
it was said that the criteria should be elaborated.
Appeal
Machinery
13.15 A number of suggestions were made for changes in the appeal machinery.
Some of these were connected with the view mentioned above that the system
had become too legalistic.
13.16 Abolition of any right of appeal from Licensing Authorities' decisions
was proposed. Other witnesses suggested that appeals should be only on points
of principle and that the Tribunal should not substitute its discretion for that
of Licensing Authorities. Yet other witnesses suggested that on the contrary the
Tribunal should conduct a complete rehearing on appeal so as to exercise its
discretion with the fullest possible knowledge of the facts.
13.17 It was also suggested that the constitution of the Tribunal might be
altered in various ways. It was proposed that it should include an economist and
that it should always have members with direct experience of haulage and of the
lower licensing courts.
Hire of Vehicles under C Licences
13.18 The provisions of the Act under which holders of C licences can hire
unmanned vehicles for their own use were widely criticised, by hauliers and those
concerned with the administration of the system, as leading to abuse.
13.19 Against them, it was argued that the facility was valuable and that the
allegations of abuse were much exaggerated. The facilities allowed the trader o r
manufacturer to supplement his C licence fleet by hiring unmanned vehicles to
meet seasonal fluctuations or to expand his operations without incurring capital
expenditure on increasing his fleet.
13.20 The practice is of long standing, but we were given to understand that
its adoption grew considerably during the period of nationalisation. Its abuse
consisted in hiring out vehicles for short periods to numerous hirers while
evading the requirements that the hirer must supply his own drivers, by setting
u p an agency to supply the drivers for him. This form of operation was tanta­
mount to operating an open haulage business. It was also possible for the hirer
to present as evidence of need in an application for an A licence the work which
he had been doing under a C hiring margin, thus obtaining some advantage over
a n applicant who started from scratch.
13.21 Various suggestions were made for dealing with the matter. One was
that the vehicles to be hired should be specified on the licence of the hirer.
Another was that the facility should be abolished and the need met by a form of
short-term Contract A licence. A third was to set u p a register of vehicle hirers,
wfco would have to record the hiring out of their vehicles and who would be
subject to appropriate rules about minimum periods of hire.
Farmers'
Concession
13.22 We also received a number of complaints about the concession whereby
farmers' vehicles while operating under C licence may carry for neighbouring
farmers for hire or reward. It was strongly suggested that a concession originally
aimed at helping bona fide farmers was being abused by persons who were
conducting haulage businesses under the guise of being farmers. (This is possible
because the Road Traffic Act I960 grants the concession to a " person engaged
in agriculture ", and " agriculture " has in law a very wide meaning^. The Act
permits carriage of goods for hire or reward on behalf of another " person
engaged in agriculture " . . . " in that locality"—and this second phrase also can
be interpreted very diversely).
13.23 Spokesmen for the farmers did not seek to show that there was no
abuse of the concession. But they did stress the great value of the concession to
genuine farmers in remote areas, and argued that it should be continued with
whatever safeguards against abuse might be agreed.
Takeover of Limited
Companies
13.24 Under the Road Traffic Act as it stands licences belonging to a haulage
business run by an individual or a partnership cannot be transferred to a
purchaser of the business. The purchaser must apply for a new licence in his
o w n right. Special provisions in the Act enable him to obtain the licence with
little difficulty if the business is a going concern and if he is not disqualified
from holding a licence by reason of previous offences as a carrier. If the business
is moribund, however, as is sometimes the case, and the purchaser is in effect
attempting to buy access to haulage with a view to cutting a niche for himself at
the expense of other hauliers' traffic, the Licensing Authority may refuse his
application.
13.25 It was pointed out to us that this control did not operate in
limited companies. Licences belonging to haulage businesses run
companies vest in the company and not in any individual. Control
bund business, if it was a company, could therefore pass without
coming to the notice of a Licensing Authority.
the case of
by limited
of a mori­
the matter
Holding Companies'' C Licences
13.26 The act permits vehicles used by a holding company to carry goods
under that company's C licence on behalf of subsidiary companies of which it
is the beneficial owner of not less than 9 0 % of the issued share capital. It was
represented to us that no harm would be done and a useful gain in the efficiency
* U n d e r the Agriculture Act 1947 (S.109(3)): " A g r i c u l t u r e includes horticulture, fruit
growing, seed growing, dairy farming and livestock breeding a n d keeping, the use of land a s
grazing land, m e a d o w land, osier land, m a r k e t g a r d e n s and nursery g r o u n d s , a n d the use of
w o o d l a n d s where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for o t h e r agricultural p u r p o s e s " .
of some C licence fleets would accrue if this concession were extended to sub­
sidiary companies more than 5 0 % owned and if vehicles licensed by one
subsidiary could carry for another.
Holding Companies and Contract A Licences
13.27 It was further suggested that the concession in respect of interworking
under holding companies' C licences could usefully be extended to interworking
under a Contract A licence granted under a contract between a haulier and a
holding company.
Duration of Licences
13.28 A a n d C licences at present have a m a x i m u m life of 5 years but B
licences a life of only 2 years. Various suggestions were m a d e for changes in the
duration of licences, including a suggestion that all licences should have a life
of 5 years.
Display of Licence
Conditions
13.29 It was suggested that vehicles subject to restrictive conditions should
display the conditions in question as an aid t o enforcement.
Definition
of Capacity of Vehicles
13.30 A number of witnesses pointed out that the unladen weight of a goods
vehicle was an unreliable indicator of its carrying capacity. It was suggested that
when introduction of a " plating scheme " (see paragraph 6.51 above) m a d e the
carrying capacity of each vehicle readily ascertainable, this should be used as a
measure whenever appropriate.
Licensing by Capacity of Fleet
13.31 It was also suggested that, at least for some carriers, licensing should be
in terms of the total capacity of their fleet rather than of individual vehicles.
Licensing
of
Trailers
13.32 It was suggested that trailers, and in particular the semi-trailers of
articulated vehicles, should be individually identified in licences instead of as at
present authorised by a description of type and weight. This change would
tighten the control exercised by Licensing Authorities.
Definition of " Goods Vehicle "
13.33 Section 191 of the R o a d Traffic Act 1960 defines a goods vehicle as " a
m o t o r vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or a
trailer so constructed or adapted ". It was suggested that this definition was
insufficiently precise.
Deposits from Applicants and Objectors
13.34 It was suggested that applicants and objectors should be required to
lodge deposits which would be forfeit if without due notice they failed to appear
at a public inquiry called to consider their case. It was said that the practice of
lodging precautionary or merely delaying objections without attempting to
sustain them was fairly prevalent and caused waste of valuable time to Licensing
Authorities and others concerned in the proceedings.
Use of Drivers Not Employed by
2
Licensee
13.35 T h e Act lays the responsibility for the correct licensing of a goods
vehicle u p o n the employer of the driver. A licence permits only the employer to
" use " the vehicle and no vehicle can be specified in more than one licence. As
a result a carrier is unable legally to make arrangements for interchange, for
example, of drivers on vehicles worked jointly with an associate at the opposite
end of o r within a trunk route. It was suggested that this restriction should be
lifted.
Exemption
of Vehicles Operating
Within Limited
Radii
13.36 We also received proposals for exemption from various requirements
of licensing of vehicles operating within limited radii. Considered schemes on
these lines were put forward. T h e general object was to remove from unnecessary
control classes of vehicle unlikely to affect the major streams of road transport.
Conclusions
13.37 We m a k e three points on this list of proposals for reform of the present
system. First, some of the suggestions are incompatible each with the other.
Some seek to increase control, some to loosen it, sometimes both. Some would
increase the complexity and legalism of a system which others said had gone too
far already in this direction. Second, the meeting of some of the criticisms would
involve problems of definition o r of drawing boundaries. Even if new definitions
could be found, we think these demarcation lines might well in practice prove
no m o r e satisfactory than the old. Third, some of the proposals m a d e good
sense to us a n d would have been put forward by us if we had decided to
recommend reform within the present system of quantity control.
13.38 But seen in their entirety, the m a n y criticisms of the system had two
more telling effects o n us. First, they showed that the present arrangements were
a long way from satisfying even those who thought that the broad principles on
which they were founded were right. Second, they were additional evidence of
the complexity of the a p p a r a t u s which had grown u p , and which clearly would
tend to increase as one refinement after another was applied to meet particular
points. T h e net result of all the criticisms was to strengthen our belief that the
system was ill-suited to present day needs.
(Signed)
[Chairman)
GEDDES
W.
L.
BARROWS
WALKER
DAVID
CARTER
MILNE
VINCENT
B . S.
J. M . M O O R E
(Secretary)
2nd April, 1965.
TEWSON
YAMEY
Appendix A
List of Bodies and Persons who submitted evidence to the Committee.
Those who gave oral evidence as well as written evidence are marked *.
Those who gave oral evidence only are marked **.
Abnormal Loads Committee (Conference of Heavy Engineering Industry)
Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd.
Association of British Chambers of Commerce
Association of British Chemical Manufacturers
Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales
Association of County Councils in Scotland
Mr. A. W. Balne
Barnes and Tipping Ltd.
*Dr. M . E. Beesley
Mr. S. T. W. Benns
Mr. A. B. Birnie—Deputy Licensing Authority for the Scottish Traffic Area
*Mr. S. C. Bond
Boxfoldia Ltd.
*Bow G r o u p British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers" Association British Furniture Manufacturers' Federated Associations British Mechanical Engineering Federation * British Railways Board
""British Road Federation British Ships' Stores Association British Tarpaviors' Federation Burgess Webb and Squire Ltd. Car Collection C o m p a n y Ltd. Chamber of Coal Traders Chamber of Shipping **Mr. C. N . Christensen
Mr. G. Claydon
Cold Asphalt Association
C o n t r a c t o r s ' Plant Association
Co-operative Union Ltd. (Parliamentary Committee)
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland
District Councils' Association for Scotland
George Dominic Ltd.
Mr. C. S. D u n b a r
Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.
**Mr. H. T. Dutfield
East and West Ridings Regional Board for Industry
East Anglian Carriers Ltd.
East Midland Gas Board
Eastern Regional Board for Industry
Electrical Contractors' Association
Electrical Vehicle Association of Great Britain
Electricity Council
iMaj. Gen. A. F. J. Elmslie—Licensing Authority for the N o r t h Western
Traffic Area
* M r . J. Else—Licensing Authority for the West Midland Traffic Area
Farmcraft Ltd.
* Federation of British Industries
Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors
Federation of Manufacturers of Construction Equipment
Federation of Master Builders
Federation of Wholesale and Multiple Bakers (Great Britain and Northern
Ireland)
*Sir J o h n Fisher General Council of the Bar General Post Office Glacier F o o d s Ltd. Goodier and Sons Ltd. Hall and H a m River Ltd. *Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon—Licensing Authority for the Northern Traffic Area
*Mr. A. J. Harrison
Hatter Bros. (Grays) Ltd.
*Mr. C. R. Hodgson—Licensing Authority for the East Midland Traffic Area
W. Holgate Ltd. Horticultural Trades Association **The Lord H u r c o m b
Ice Cream Alliance
Ice Cream Federation
Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire
Institute of British Launderers
Institute of Iron and Steel Wire Manufacturers
Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society (Road Transport Licensing
Sub-Committee)
Mr. R. R. Jackson—Licensing Authority for the South Wales Traffic Area
Mr. W. P. James
Law Society
London and South Eastern Regional Board for Industry
Longton and North Staffs. Transport Ltd.
Mr. C. J. Macdonald—Deputy Licensing Authority, Metropolitan Traffic
Area Mansion House Association on Transport Mawby, Barrie and Letts—on behalf of: Edwin Clark Ltd. Cleansing Service (Southern Counties) Ltd. Contract Gully Cleansing Ltd. Garage Interceptor Cleaners Ltd. G. W. Green (Contractors) Ltd. C. W. Harrison (Contractors) Ltd. C. W. Harrison (Western )Ltd. Linggood Bros. Ltd. Mechanical Cleansing Service Ltd. J. Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. Purle Bros. Ltd. Sweetways Sanitary Cleaners Ltd. Tovey Transport Ltd. A. E. Woodham (Cleansing Services) Ltd.
R. H . Cleare and C o .
Sludge Disposals Ltd.
M. and M. Mechanical Empties Ltd. Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint Committee Midland Regional Board for Industry Milk Marketing Board Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ""Ministry of Transport
M.T.S. (Yorkshire) Ltd.
G. E. M o o r e (Haulage) Ltd. Mr. C. H. Mosicr *Mr. D . L. Munby *Mr. D . I. R. M u i r - L i c e n s i n g Authority for the Metropolitan Traffic Area
National Association of Agricultural Contractors
National Association of British and Irish Millers
National Association of British Manufacturers
National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants
National Association of Frozen Food Producers
National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers
National Association of Inland Waterway Carriers
National Association of Master Bakers, Confectioners and Caterers
National Association of Parish Councils
National Association of Wholesale Distributors of Frozen Foods National Caravan Council National Conference of Road Transport Associations National Conference of Road Transport Clearing Houses *National Council on Inland Transport
National Electrical Contractors' Trading Association
National Farmers' Union of England and Wales
National Farmers' Union of Scotland
National Federated Electrical Association
N a t i o n a l Federation of Fishmongers
National Federation of Meat Traders' Association
National Federation of Wholesale Grocers and Provision Merchants
Mr. S. Nelson—Licensing Authority for the Western Traffic Area
N o r t h Western Regional Board for Industry
Mr. W. P. S. Ormond—Licensing Authority for the Eastern Traffic Area
Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety
Pilkington Bros. Ltd.
*Mr. G. J. Ponsonby
Mr. W. F . Quin—Licensing Authority for the Scottish Traffic Area
Retail Fruit Trade Federation
Railway Development Association
* R o a d Haulage Association
R o a d Research Laboratory
R o a d Roller Owners' Association
Mr. Gleeson E. Robinson
Mr. G. J. Roth
*The Lord Salter
Sand and Gravel Association of Great Britain
Sausage Manufacturers' Association
Scottish Regional Board for Industry
Scottish Counties of Cities Association
Scottish Federation of Fishmongers
Mr. E. J. Shaw
Showmen's Guild of Great Britain
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
South Eastern Gas Board
South Western Regional Board for Industry
Standing Joint Committee of the R . A . C . - A . A . and R.S.A.C.
*Sir George Stedman
*Mr. J. M. W. Stewart
*Mr. G . Squibb—President of the Transport Tribunal
Tate and Lyle G r o u p of Road Transport Companies
Mr. H . J. Thorn—Licensing Authority for the South Eastern Traffic Are
Mr. C. C. Toyne—Senior Mechanical Engineer, Metropolitan Traffic A
Traders' Co-ordinating Committee on Transport
T r a d e r s Road T r a n s p o r t Association
Traders' Traffic Conference Association
*Trades Union Congress
Transport Association
"Transport Development G r o u p Ltd.
T r a n s p o r t Holding C o m p a n y
United Commercial Travellers' Association
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Advisory Committee
Urban District Councils Association
Vehicle Builders' and Repairers' Association
Professor Gilbert Walker
Professor A. A. Walters
Mr. A. M. Wilson
Mr. R. S. Yorke
Appendix B
STATISTICS
(i) Extracts from Ministry of Transport Statistical Paper No. 2—Survey
of Road Goods Transport, 1962, Final Results, Part I. H . M . S O .
From Table (/), page 2, and Table (yi), page 9:
Ton Mileage by road and rail.
Ton mileage performed
by
(Thousand
mill ions)
Ton mileage
Year
performed
(Thousand
by road
millions)
rail
transport
General
merchandise
(excl. iron and steel)
All
goods
1952
..
18-8
5-7
22-4
1962
..
33-6
4-3
16-!
From Table (wV), page 10:
Indices of Production for selected industries 1952-1962 (Average 1958=100)
Predominantly
rail
using
industries
Year Mining and
quarrying 1952
1958
1962
..
..
Ferrous
metal
manufacture
Predominantly
road
using
industries
Bricks,
Building
Food,
drink
pottery,
glass,
and
and
tobacco
etc.
cement
construction
manufacture manufacture
105
95
86
94
86
100
95
100
107
100
112
100
126
100
121
-10
4-13
4-30
4-34
4-41
Volume
of retail
sales
not
available
100
111
Percentage
change
1952-62..
not
available
Proportion of empty mileage in total mileage r u n : analysis by licence class
and unladen weight category
Percentages
Unladen weight
Licence
category
Over
A
Not over
24
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
33
32
37
40
42
41
13
17
19
21
21
28
14 20 23 30
37
40
Total C o n t r a c t A
41
21
37
44
41
45
44
45
43
18
18
22
19
21
29
24
23
30
31
40
42
45
20
37
*
36
36
37
39
37
21
12
15
16
18
29
21
18
21
21
30
36
38
17
23
36
17
25
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
B
1
2
21
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
1
2
2A
3
5
1
2
2A
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total B
c
1
2
2i
3
5
j
All vehicles
journeys
15
I
2
2.t
3
5
';.
All
27
Contract A
'
intermediate
journeys
22
22
20
22
25
23
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total A
,....
i On
mileage
20
18
14
14
15
17
1
2
! 21
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
On end-to-end
journeys
of empty
33
40
42
32
28
23
1
I
2
2\
3
5
Proportion
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
1 ton
2 tons
2\ t o n s
3 tons
5 tons
Total C
* AH j o u r n e y s by C vehicles not exceeding 1 ton unladen weight were classed as intermediate.
Estimated n u m b e r of loaded end-to-end journeys undertaken during 1962,
analysed by length of haul
Thousands
Length of haul
Licence
category
Unladen
Total
weight
Under
25 miles
25-49
miles
50-99
miles
100 miles
and over
Over
Not over
A
3 tons
5 tons
5 tons
7,434
1,466
1,629
608
1,572
865
1,871
1,517
12,507
4,457
Contract
A
3 tons
5 tons
5 tons
4,085
1,240
996
442
587
406
349
430
6,018
2,520
B
3 tons
5 tons
5 tons
15,457
1,187
1,725
257
693
186
295
145
18,169
1,775
C
3 tons
5 tons
5 tons
33,729
8,615
4,800
2,093
2,413
1,628
1,271
1,001
42,212
13,338
F r o m Table 22, page 44
Estimated number of intermediate journeys undertaken during 1962, analysed
by length of journey
Thousands
Length of journey
Licence
category
Unladen
weight
Total
Under
25 miles
25-49
miles
50-99
miles
100 miles
and over
Over
Not over
A
3 tons
5 tons
5 tons
1,610
256
1,045
116
909
153
691
167
4,259
690
Contract
A
3 tons
5 tons
5 tons
328
59
265
18
243
33
260
65
1,096
175
B
3 tons
5 tons
5 tons
1,663
43
770
46
536
35
201
30
3,169
155
C
3 tons
5 tons
5 tons
9,626
765
4,814
637
3,483
689
2,117
480
20,040
2,571
1
i
I t is i m p o r t a n t to note t h a t this is n o t a n analysis by length of h a u l of a consignment. I t is
not possible from the results of t h e present survey to analyse intermediate j o u r n e y s by length
of h a u l because, by definition, this type of j o u r n e y is o n e o n which the load is continually
c h a n g i n g . T h e present figures therefore relate to j o u r n e y s analysed b y their length; t h e vehicle
m a y b e loaded for the whole j o u r n e y o r for only p a r t of it, a n d different c o n s i g n m e n t s (or size
of consignment) will be carried o n different p a r t s of the j o u r n e y .
Estimated tons carried on end-to-end journeys during 1962, analysed by
length of haul
Millions
Length of haul
Unladen
Licence
category
Over
weight
Not over
Total
Under
25 miles
25-19
miles
50-99
miles
100 miles
and over
.
1 ton
2 tons
21 tons
3 tons
5 tons
C
1
2
2J
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total
.
- ­
18-4
14-4
35-4
191 1
78-1
1-2
1-3
4-4
29-1
220
0-5
0-4
2-0
14-5
17 0
(K2
0 1
0-9
6-3
9-5
20-3
16-2
42-6
241.0
126-6
337-2
58 0
34-4
17-1
446-7
-
From Table 24, page 46
Estimated tons carried on intermediate journeys during 1962. analysed by
length of journey
Millions
t
Length of journey
Licence
category
C
Unladen
Over
1
2
2i
3
5
Not over
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Tota
Totall
weight
1
2
2J
3
5
Total
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Under
25 miles
25-49
miles
50-99
miles
41-8
27-7
22-1
34-0
38-7
5-6
11-9
91
15-6
21-7
5-5
5-2
3-5
9-5
15-3
5-9
169-9
63-7
39-5
-
100 miles
and over
1-3
0-9
30
9-3
4-2
18-7
4i -8
46 1
35 6
62-1
84-9
21-3
291-8
Estimated ton mileage performed on end-to-end journeys during 1962, analysed
by length of haul
Millions
Length
Unladen
Licence
category
Over
A
1
2
2J
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Not
over
1
2
24
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total
Contract
A
1 ton
2 tons
2 A tons
3 tons
5 tons
1
2
24
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total
B
1
2
24
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
i
2
24
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total
C
1
2
2i
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
1
2
24
3
5
Total
T o t a i , all vehicles
of haul
weight
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total
Under
25 miles
25-49
50-99
miles
miles
j 100
j and
miles
over
147
2,390
3,143
8
24
422
3,972
4,276
5,685
8,702
12
83
354
140
1
4
65
411
249
1
4
127
818
743
594
729
1,693
3
34
314
136
2
2
20
269
190
21
320
345
29
432
884
7
105
1,334
1,555
487
481
689
1,345
3,002
1
3
24
149
854
121
1
7
45
441
104
1,152
5
"i
,
2
1
2
31
314
149
1
1
20 *
263
220
1
5
34
246
1,872
593
598
497
505
2,752
123
92
263
1,522
741
39
43
140
1,038
860
37
32
132
977
1,115
29
118
982
1,484
228
189
653
4,519
4,200
2,741
2,119
2,293
2,635
9,789
. 4,975
3,928
5,172
10,170
24,244
j
22
i
Estimated ton mileage performed
analysed by length of j o u r n e y
on intermediate journeys during 1962..
Millions
Length of journey
Licence
category
Unladen
Over
A
1
2
24
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
weight
Not
over
1
2
2*
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total
Contract
A
1
2
2i
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
1
2
24
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total
B
1
2
24
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
1
2
24
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total
C
1
2
24
3
5
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
1
2
24
3
5
Total
Total, all verlicles
ton
tons
tons
tons
tons
Total
Under
25 iniies
25-49
miles
. --
50-99
miles
100 miles
and over
"
8
33
81
119
27
1
8
20
114
212
67
508
206
1
33
93
364
879
316
160
269
422
836
!,687
" l
"2
13
33
58
40
16
3
7
112
1
3
26
167
65
2
7
15
72
261
87
4
4
11
26
5
1
3
5
25
53
13
31
50
100
263
444
1
5
27
53
53
2
1
6
18
78
76
6
1
6
16
74
124
9
1
2
3
44
101
20
5
19
65
247
354
143
184
229
170
726
687
269
153
299
290
34
331
198
435
451
98
199
155
387
596
194
101
74
276
908
378
687
901
581
1,397
2,244
704
1,732
1,514
1,531
1,738
6,515
2,066
2,017
2,282
3,007
9,373
3
9
14
ill
(ii) Extracts from Ministry of Transport Statistical Paper No. 3—Highway
Statistics, 1963. H . M . S . O .
F r o m Table 6, page 15
Numbers of agricultural and general goods vehicles with licences current
1958-1963: analysis by unladen weight
Thousands
Type of
goods vehicle
General
Unladen
Weight
1963
Over N o t over
16 cwts
1 ton
1£ tons
16
1
\i
2
cwts
ton
tons
tons
Total not over 2 tons 2
3
5
8
tons
tons
tons
tons
331
237
276
81
925
3 tons
5 tons
8 tons
TOTAL
223
244
61
17
1,470
Note: This table does not include the 6,000 haulage t r a c t o r s as defined in p a r a g r a p h 5 of the
Third Schedule of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 (i.c. b r o a d l y n o n - l o a d carrying vehicles towing
" d r a w - b a r " trailers). Of these, 4,000 weigh u n d e r 2 tons unladen a n d 2,000 weigh between
2 and 3 tons u n l a d e n . T h e r e is also a very small n u m b e r of these vehicles of over 3 tons u n l a d e n
F r o m Table 9, page 26
Vehicles with licences current: detailed analysis by type and size of vehicle
Type and size of vehicle
1962
1963
22,000
294, 100
236, 500
257,400
80,500
86,300
142,800
164,500
60,900
27,400
12,600
12,500
15,200
26,800
303,800
236,800
275,800
81,400
S5.700
137,100
174,500
69,100
31,200
15,500
14,700
17,400
1,412,500
1,469,800
G o o d s Vehicles (continued)
(b) G e n e r a l
(i) Analysis by unladen weight: Over
12 cwts
16
1 ton
li t o n s
2
2*
3
,,
4
5
6
,,
7
.,
8
,,
N o t over
12 cwts
16 ,,
1 ton
11 t o n s
2
,,
2* ,,
3
,,
4
,
5
,,
6
,,
7
8
TOTAL
Note: This t a b l e does not include the 6,000 haulage tractors with licences current. (See
footnote to previous table).
(iii) Extract from "Public Haulage Operators.
1963". Ministry of Transport
Analysis by Size of Fleet
From Table 2, page 2
Estimated distribution of public haulage vehicles by size of fleet as at 31st
December, 1963
Size of fleet
1 vehicle
2 vehicles
3
4
5
Total 1 to 5 vehicles
6 to 10 vehicles
II to 15
16 to 20
21 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 100 ,,
101 to 200 ,,
M o r e t h a n 200 vehicles
T o t a l Vehicles
Number of
vehicles
Percentage of
all vehicles
23,100
15,700
11,900
10,100
8,300
11 8
6
5
4
69,100
28,900
18,300
12,500
15,700
9,700
5,800
10,100
6,600
28,900*
34 14 9
6
7
5
3
5
3
14 205,600
100
""Including the T r a n s p o r t Holding C o m p a n y fleets.
JPrintcd tor Her Majesty's Stationery Office by M c C o r q u o d a l e . & C o . Lid., L o n d o n , N . W . 1 .
W l . 120559 K -40 M c C 3309